Wow, is this a confusing film.
It's a good confusing film, but still...
The film jumps between a series of characters that are loosely related, with the same core group of actors playing parts in each. From what I've heard this is due to reincarnation of souls or something similar, but the film does a very poor job of explaining that. The periods and a brief synopsis is:-
1849 - A lawyer travels to the South Pacific in orde to purchase slaves for his father-in-law, but falls ill on the journey home. His story is in a book being read in
1936 - by a young composer who is working with an ageing great to record one last work. He writes of his time in letters to his boyfriend who in
1973 - is a murdered physisct associated with a nuclear plant in San Fransisco who manages to pass his concerns to a journalist. The stories of her investigations are written as a draft in
2012 - given to a literary agent who has to go into hiding to avoid paying money owed to a gang whose leader is the subject of a surprisingly popular book. A clip of the film of his exploits is used in
2144 to awaken the awareness of a 'fabricant', a genetically engineered servant/slave, who lives under a Dickian regime in Neo-Seoul. Her revelations lead to her being seen as a god
109 years after the fall, a post apocalyptic, society reverted period several hundred years later. A cowardly tribesman decides to help a technologically advanced visitor to reach a culturally forbidden mountaintop, despite the visions he's having of the devil telling him it's a bad idea.
Overall, my favourites are the 73 China Syndrome adaption and the 2144 Blade Runner homage. The 1849 other-side-of-Austen seemed quite superfluous other than reflecting some of the themes from later segments towards the end. I strongly dislike the farce that 2012 mostly resembles. The other two sections are decent enough.
Know that there's been some controversy about the use of white actors as Koreans in the 2144 sequence, but I felt it was handled well, and more importantly was done in reverse, with Korean actors playing white characters.
This is a film that I want to see again. Mostly because I reckon that if I do, I'll probably understand it at lot more...
7/10 stars
Sunday, 3 March 2013
Monday, 18 February 2013
I Give it a Year
First off, apparently blogger decided to swallow my review of Wreck-it-Ralph from last week. A quick summary; it's awesome, go see it, 9/10
Now onto today's film; I Give it a Year, a British rom-com. It follows a couple of newlyweds, ad exec Nat (Rose Byrne) and novel writer Josh (Rafe Spall), through their first year of marriage. It's clear early on that they've rushed into it, and aren't really suited to each other. They also have potential partners who the movie sets up to suit them far better; Josh has his ex Chloe (Anna Faris), who spent several years doing charity work in Africa, whilst Nat has rich new client Guy (Simon Baker). In addition, there's Nat's sister Naomi (Minnie Driver), who's troubled but functional marriage acts as a counter point to our leads, whilst Josh's best man Dan (Stephen Merchant) supplies the cringing example of singledom. A variety of the great and good of mid level British comedy supply amusing vignettes, with Olivia Coleman being a specific highlight as the world's worst marriage counsellor giving structure to the first two acts.
It is in the second act that things start to break apart somewhat. The film is clearly trying to say that Josh & Chloe and Nat & Guy are the most suitable pairings amongst the cast. I Josh & Chloe's case, this is pretty well done, but with Nat & Guy it just didn't seem to fit for me. Initially it is just some mild flirting, with Nat failing to mention the marriage to Guy in order to help secure his business, with amusing consequences when they and Josh interact at a works Christmas party.
Then we reach the Dove incident.
Under the pretence of a buisness meeting, Guy invites Nat to an elaborately arranged romantic interlude, with oysters, a violinist and two live doves. In a room with a ceiling fan. The scene is designed to give us some cringing stuff with doves flying madly around a room, getting knocked out and pooping on people, as well as forcing Nat to reveal her marriage to fend off Guy's moves. The problem I had with it though is the way he keeps pushing through what is clearly a very uncomfortable moment for Nat with his ridiculous antics, which to me seems to make him seem just as incompatible as Josh is. This was a feeling that coloured my impression of guy for the rest of the film, really weakening the ending.
Talking of the ending, it's pretty much what you'd expect. I went into the film with a vague thought that it would be about a couple acting as straight men to the antics around them, which isn't what this is. What it does give is an entertaining, if schmaltzy story of true love shining through and being willing to admit and correct your mistakes, deflated for me by the repercussions of the Dove incident discussed above. But the jokes are funny, the story almost works, the supporting characters are generally quite fun, and it's probably worth a watch.
7/10
Now onto today's film; I Give it a Year, a British rom-com. It follows a couple of newlyweds, ad exec Nat (Rose Byrne) and novel writer Josh (Rafe Spall), through their first year of marriage. It's clear early on that they've rushed into it, and aren't really suited to each other. They also have potential partners who the movie sets up to suit them far better; Josh has his ex Chloe (Anna Faris), who spent several years doing charity work in Africa, whilst Nat has rich new client Guy (Simon Baker). In addition, there's Nat's sister Naomi (Minnie Driver), who's troubled but functional marriage acts as a counter point to our leads, whilst Josh's best man Dan (Stephen Merchant) supplies the cringing example of singledom. A variety of the great and good of mid level British comedy supply amusing vignettes, with Olivia Coleman being a specific highlight as the world's worst marriage counsellor giving structure to the first two acts.
It is in the second act that things start to break apart somewhat. The film is clearly trying to say that Josh & Chloe and Nat & Guy are the most suitable pairings amongst the cast. I Josh & Chloe's case, this is pretty well done, but with Nat & Guy it just didn't seem to fit for me. Initially it is just some mild flirting, with Nat failing to mention the marriage to Guy in order to help secure his business, with amusing consequences when they and Josh interact at a works Christmas party.
Then we reach the Dove incident.
Under the pretence of a buisness meeting, Guy invites Nat to an elaborately arranged romantic interlude, with oysters, a violinist and two live doves. In a room with a ceiling fan. The scene is designed to give us some cringing stuff with doves flying madly around a room, getting knocked out and pooping on people, as well as forcing Nat to reveal her marriage to fend off Guy's moves. The problem I had with it though is the way he keeps pushing through what is clearly a very uncomfortable moment for Nat with his ridiculous antics, which to me seems to make him seem just as incompatible as Josh is. This was a feeling that coloured my impression of guy for the rest of the film, really weakening the ending.
Talking of the ending, it's pretty much what you'd expect. I went into the film with a vague thought that it would be about a couple acting as straight men to the antics around them, which isn't what this is. What it does give is an entertaining, if schmaltzy story of true love shining through and being willing to admit and correct your mistakes, deflated for me by the repercussions of the Dove incident discussed above. But the jokes are funny, the story almost works, the supporting characters are generally quite fun, and it's probably worth a watch.
7/10
Sunday, 17 February 2013
Beautiful Creatures
So, I went to see Beautiful Creatures this afternoon, and for some reason when mentally composing this blog post, I felt the need to startby defending that decision. Part of it is probably that I've fallen prey to the quite big marketing push behind the movie, but another part is that I'm trying to expand the range of movies I watch. After all, one of my top five movies from last year was the Hunger Games, which I could easily have dismissed as another movie of a young adult novel. The cast looked quite decent - two Oscar winners and a nominee. Also, it was the film that fitted best to watch today given my plans for the rest of the week.
Well, the acting's good.
What you wanted more? Well, okay then. I missed the first five minutes of the film (bloody buses), but to be honest I doubt it would have helped, as it definateley seemed to be something that was a question of discovering stuff through the viewpoint of the lead male, Ethan (Alden Ehrenreich). It starts decently enough with Ethan meeting Lena (Alice Englert), a social outcast from a deep south town who has recently come to town to live with her uncle (Jeremy Irons). They have a couple of encounters, and have obvious attraction, but there are weird goings on - when two of their classmates are tormenting Lena, all the windows in the room explode, when Ethan meets Uncle Macon he answers the question of what plans he has for his life with a depressing stream of typical small town life leading to suicide at 64, when Ethan & Lena touch a keepsake of Ethan's they get vision of the Civil War and Ethan wakes up at his home.
After all this Ethan confronts Lena and she gets a chance to EXPOSIT! She, and her family are "Casters" - they have innate magical power. Witches is the derogatory term used for them, in the same way you might use geek or jock. On their 16th birthday, a Caster will be claimed by either the dark or light side of... whatever, based on their true nature. They refer to normal humans as "Mortals" despite the fact that there is no indication that Casters have any longer lifespans than anyone else. There are a number of different varieties of Casters, including Seers and Sirens, and it all comes across as ridiculous.
Where it gets far worse is when we find out the Macon was claimed as a Dark Caster, but is working to be a Light Caster to support Lena. However, if Lena is claimed by the dark side, there's no way back for her because she female and...
Wait what?
Because she's a Woman, when she turns sixteen, her 'true nature' will determine wether she'll be good or evil, and there's no way that she can ever change. Ever.
The.
Fuck.
This was where I was done with the movie, but there was still an hour to go. The other elements of the plot are that there is an additional curse on the female line that means that falling for a mortal will doom them to the dark side no matter how good they are. There's also Lena's mother, who is disembodied for some unexplained reason and has taken over the body of a extremely religious mother (Emma Thompson), and wants to force Lena to the dark side so that she will conquer the world for her as she is going to be extremely powerful due to her 16th being on the winter solstice at the end of a long cycle; the fact that this southern town bans To Kill a Mockingbird but is perfectly racially integrated, the tiny amount given to some of the supporting family members ( Emmy Rossum's cousin Ridley is the only one who actually gets something loosely plot related, and that's because her character has been given the seductress subset of thewomen are evil by their natures Dark Caster powers, how Ethan's best friend seems perfectly calm after what happens at the end, or the fact that despite being mentioned as being around quite regularly we never actually see Ethan's dad.
There is a small glimmer of positivity I can take is from the acting. Within their (deeply flawed) characters and script all of the main actors put in a decent performance - Emma Thompson's split between the bible bashing 'won't someone think of the children' Mrs Lincoln and the inhabiting, power crazed spirit of Sarafine was particularly entertaining. But as I noted above, the adults are all Oscar grade actors who can be seen doing their stuff in far better films, and I'm sure the teen generation will end up getting other roles where they can show off. As for this in particular, no. Just don't bother.
2/10
Well, the acting's good.
What you wanted more? Well, okay then. I missed the first five minutes of the film (bloody buses), but to be honest I doubt it would have helped, as it definateley seemed to be something that was a question of discovering stuff through the viewpoint of the lead male, Ethan (Alden Ehrenreich). It starts decently enough with Ethan meeting Lena (Alice Englert), a social outcast from a deep south town who has recently come to town to live with her uncle (Jeremy Irons). They have a couple of encounters, and have obvious attraction, but there are weird goings on - when two of their classmates are tormenting Lena, all the windows in the room explode, when Ethan meets Uncle Macon he answers the question of what plans he has for his life with a depressing stream of typical small town life leading to suicide at 64, when Ethan & Lena touch a keepsake of Ethan's they get vision of the Civil War and Ethan wakes up at his home.
After all this Ethan confronts Lena and she gets a chance to EXPOSIT! She, and her family are "Casters" - they have innate magical power. Witches is the derogatory term used for them, in the same way you might use geek or jock. On their 16th birthday, a Caster will be claimed by either the dark or light side of... whatever, based on their true nature. They refer to normal humans as "Mortals" despite the fact that there is no indication that Casters have any longer lifespans than anyone else. There are a number of different varieties of Casters, including Seers and Sirens, and it all comes across as ridiculous.
Where it gets far worse is when we find out the Macon was claimed as a Dark Caster, but is working to be a Light Caster to support Lena. However, if Lena is claimed by the dark side, there's no way back for her because she female and...
Wait what?
Because she's a Woman, when she turns sixteen, her 'true nature' will determine wether she'll be good or evil, and there's no way that she can ever change. Ever.
The.
Fuck.
This was where I was done with the movie, but there was still an hour to go. The other elements of the plot are that there is an additional curse on the female line that means that falling for a mortal will doom them to the dark side no matter how good they are. There's also Lena's mother, who is disembodied for some unexplained reason and has taken over the body of a extremely religious mother (Emma Thompson), and wants to force Lena to the dark side so that she will conquer the world for her as she is going to be extremely powerful due to her 16th being on the winter solstice at the end of a long cycle; the fact that this southern town bans To Kill a Mockingbird but is perfectly racially integrated, the tiny amount given to some of the supporting family members ( Emmy Rossum's cousin Ridley is the only one who actually gets something loosely plot related, and that's because her character has been given the seductress subset of the
There is a small glimmer of positivity I can take is from the acting. Within their (deeply flawed) characters and script all of the main actors put in a decent performance - Emma Thompson's split between the bible bashing 'won't someone think of the children' Mrs Lincoln and the inhabiting, power crazed spirit of Sarafine was particularly entertaining. But as I noted above, the adults are all Oscar grade actors who can be seen doing their stuff in far better films, and I'm sure the teen generation will end up getting other roles where they can show off. As for this in particular, no. Just don't bother.
2/10
Thursday, 7 February 2013
Shattered Star Minis
Those of you who follow me on Twitter or Facebook will probably have noticed that I went into quite a lot of detail on receiving and opening my latest set of shinies, the Shattered Star minis from Paizo and Wizkids. This is the third set of minis from the partnership, and the third case I've bought of them. They are pre-painted plastic miniatures, sold in random blisters of four minis. I bought a case, which consists of 32 blisters split into 4 'bricks', and this meant that I was able to pick up the Gargantuan Blue Dragon promo piece attached to the set.
A note on the photos: My phone's camera is decent, but the lighting wasn't good, and I'm not the world's best photographer.
A note on the photos: My phone's camera is decent, but the lighting wasn't good, and I'm not the world's best photographer.
Tuesday, 5 February 2013
What I like watching
I thought since things were early on with this blog, I'd do a series of posts on the sort of stuff I enjoy. At the moment I can think of four or five posts to go into the series, but who knows where it will end. I'm going to start here by talking about what I enjoy watching - the sort of films and tv I would choose.
Probably the majority of what I'm interested in fits into the category referred variously as 'genre', 'nerd culture' or 'sci-fi & fantasy'. When you start talking about this, there's one big dividing line that has to be discussed - Star Wars or Star Trek? To which I say meh. I like some bits of both, dislike others. My first serious experience of reading was in the Star Wars Expanded Universe (more on that later), but the last real Star Wars media I absorbed was probably Episode III. I am annoyed at the direction the prequels took for telling that core story, and wish that Lucas had been in a position to allow himself to be critcally edited, but there are things to enjoy in all three, and walked out of them all very entertained. (I need to rewatch Phantom Menace at some point to see how it's matured) Iwas born came into it the franchise late enough to realise that there are significant problems with parts of the original trilogy.
I like the rare bits of Next Generation, have only seen a few episodes of the original series. I liked the concept of Voyager, but hated the execution and missed opportunity of it, and eventually burnt out on it when the Borg became a regular and not fear inducing opponent. I left Enterprise by the end of the first series, having realised that it had become 'what reason can we find to get the hot Vulcan lady in the decontamination shower this week?' show. I've seen all ten* of the trek movies, but liked maybe four of them. The one shining jewel in the pantheon is DS9 - a show that cared about continuity, plot and character development.
DS9 is in fact an excellent example of of the sort of tv series that I prefer. A show that rewards you for sticking with them, which sees people act as actual people by learning and growing from it. A show with an epic scale, where actions have consequences beyond the 43 minutes. It'll not surprise you given the above that the series of the nineties I really enjoyed was Babylon 5. This is a show with a well built, well planned but flexible framework for it's entire life. Sure, some of the acting was a bit ropes, and I expect that if I were to return I'd find the CGI painful, but the core story that it's based around? Wonderful.
This has expanded a bit more than I expected, so I'll pause it there, and look to continue into the modern period in a future post.
* there are only ten, right? I mean I know there was talk about a fan project to round off the Next Gen crews' story, but I'm sure nothing came of that...
Probably the majority of what I'm interested in fits into the category referred variously as 'genre', 'nerd culture' or 'sci-fi & fantasy'. When you start talking about this, there's one big dividing line that has to be discussed - Star Wars or Star Trek? To which I say meh. I like some bits of both, dislike others. My first serious experience of reading was in the Star Wars Expanded Universe (more on that later), but the last real Star Wars media I absorbed was probably Episode III. I am annoyed at the direction the prequels took for telling that core story, and wish that Lucas had been in a position to allow himself to be critcally edited, but there are things to enjoy in all three, and walked out of them all very entertained. (I need to rewatch Phantom Menace at some point to see how it's matured) I
I like the rare bits of Next Generation, have only seen a few episodes of the original series. I liked the concept of Voyager, but hated the execution and missed opportunity of it, and eventually burnt out on it when the Borg became a regular and not fear inducing opponent. I left Enterprise by the end of the first series, having realised that it had become 'what reason can we find to get the hot Vulcan lady in the decontamination shower this week?' show. I've seen all ten* of the trek movies, but liked maybe four of them. The one shining jewel in the pantheon is DS9 - a show that cared about continuity, plot and character development.
DS9 is in fact an excellent example of of the sort of tv series that I prefer. A show that rewards you for sticking with them, which sees people act as actual people by learning and growing from it. A show with an epic scale, where actions have consequences beyond the 43 minutes. It'll not surprise you given the above that the series of the nineties I really enjoyed was Babylon 5. This is a show with a well built, well planned but flexible framework for it's entire life. Sure, some of the acting was a bit ropes, and I expect that if I were to return I'd find the CGI painful, but the core story that it's based around? Wonderful.
This has expanded a bit more than I expected, so I'll pause it there, and look to continue into the modern period in a future post.
* there are only ten, right? I mean I know there was talk about a fan project to round off the Next Gen crews' story, but I'm sure nothing came of that...
Monday, 4 February 2013
Flight
I've just got back from watching Flight, the new drama starring Denzel Washington. Washington plays Whip Whitaker, a veteran airline pilot, on a routine flight from Orlando to Atlanta. During the flight, there's a major fault with the plane, and it goes into a nose dive. Whip manages to correct the dive, taking the plane away from population centres, and allowing him to put the plane down in a field, with minimal loss of life. Very classic Sully like stuff.
Except that before the flight we've already discovered the Whip has been drinking, snorting cocaine and sleeping with one of the stewardesses mere hours before take off. Also, he actually takes a drink during the flight. After a crash comes an investigation, and this is the problem, as for everyone involved it's a question of pass the blame-parcel, to which "Alcoholic Coke Fuelled Pilot" is catnip.
It's obstensibly the story of a plane crash, but it's actually the story of a man fighting his demons, and that's where it went off the rails for me. It probably doesn't reflect well on me, but the impression I got from the character was of someone not willing to face up to his responsibilities, rather than someone being overwhelmed by their flaws. There's no real explanation for why he's an alcoholic - in fact, the film makes efforts to refute the classic shorthand reasoning behind alcoholism by showing Whip's very good childhood. Sure, Washington puts in an excellent performance, but there's just something off in it. The film also seems very long, and this from someone who didn't mind the length of the Hobbit!
Overall, it's a decent, if slightly predictable and drawn out piece, that seems primarially to have been designed to grab Denzel Washington an Oscar nod. Too bad he's up against Hugh Jackman's excellent Jean Valjean, and a bravura performance from Daniel Day Lewis.
6/10
Except that before the flight we've already discovered the Whip has been drinking, snorting cocaine and sleeping with one of the stewardesses mere hours before take off. Also, he actually takes a drink during the flight. After a crash comes an investigation, and this is the problem, as for everyone involved it's a question of pass the blame-parcel, to which "Alcoholic Coke Fuelled Pilot" is catnip.
It's obstensibly the story of a plane crash, but it's actually the story of a man fighting his demons, and that's where it went off the rails for me. It probably doesn't reflect well on me, but the impression I got from the character was of someone not willing to face up to his responsibilities, rather than someone being overwhelmed by their flaws. There's no real explanation for why he's an alcoholic - in fact, the film makes efforts to refute the classic shorthand reasoning behind alcoholism by showing Whip's very good childhood. Sure, Washington puts in an excellent performance, but there's just something off in it. The film also seems very long, and this from someone who didn't mind the length of the Hobbit!
Overall, it's a decent, if slightly predictable and drawn out piece, that seems primarially to have been designed to grab Denzel Washington an Oscar nod. Too bad he's up against Hugh Jackman's excellent Jean Valjean, and a bravura performance from Daniel Day Lewis.
6/10
Sunday, 3 February 2013
Why hello
Hello, and welcome to my new blog!
I've been meaning to get back into blogging properly for several years - I used to blog with a Livejournal (here), but since my last post there was the best part of four years ago and that was the only post that entire year, I thought it best to start over.
What can you expect from this blog? For now, I'm not totally sure. I'm going to try a few different things, to see what seems to fit. There's likely to be some politics, but also a reasonable amount of culture, especially 'geeky' stuff. I've also recently started watching a lot more films at the cinema (I'm probably at near half my total visits from last year already, and it's barely Feburary!) so there might be a few attempts at film reviews.
Who are you, anyway? Hi! I'm Pete, a twenty-something bloke presently living in Birmingham in the UK. I've worked for a bank since leaving Uni in 2007, although reasonably low on the totem pole. Outside of work, my biggest hobby is RPGs, primarially the Pathfinder RPG, which is a variation of Dungeons & Dragons. I'm interested in a reasonably wide range of fantasy & sci-fi media, although my tastes are not locked down 'in genre'. Politically I'm a member of the Liberal Democrats, generally in the centre of the party. All of this is stuff I'll expound on in future posts.
I've been meaning to get back into blogging properly for several years - I used to blog with a Livejournal (here), but since my last post there was the best part of four years ago and that was the only post that entire year, I thought it best to start over.
What can you expect from this blog? For now, I'm not totally sure. I'm going to try a few different things, to see what seems to fit. There's likely to be some politics, but also a reasonable amount of culture, especially 'geeky' stuff. I've also recently started watching a lot more films at the cinema (I'm probably at near half my total visits from last year already, and it's barely Feburary!) so there might be a few attempts at film reviews.
Who are you, anyway? Hi! I'm Pete, a twenty-something bloke presently living in Birmingham in the UK. I've worked for a bank since leaving Uni in 2007, although reasonably low on the totem pole. Outside of work, my biggest hobby is RPGs, primarially the Pathfinder RPG, which is a variation of Dungeons & Dragons. I'm interested in a reasonably wide range of fantasy & sci-fi media, although my tastes are not locked down 'in genre'. Politically I'm a member of the Liberal Democrats, generally in the centre of the party. All of this is stuff I'll expound on in future posts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)