Tuesday, 30 August 2011
Fanficcing ahoy!
So I've launched my other blog, Mostly Fanfics, and posted the first part of Day in the Dumpster (a Dr Who fanfic) and a short Digimon one I wrote a while ago. Neither have been redrafted, so they are pretty rough, but if you are curious go check it out.
Monday, 29 August 2011
Film Review - The Rise of the Planet of the Apes
Welcome to the next in my series of "I don't like 'X' but..." reviews, meet Planet of the Apes. Although I can see the original film working as a stark post apocalyptic affair, our home world devolving back into a wilderness devoid of civilisation, and rather than being a film about an ape apocalypse (as opposed to a zombie or machine apocalypse) the title was a metaphor. Somewhere along the lines the monkeys became bad guys of sorts, and the inherent silliness made the films rather hard to take seriously. You kind of have to accept the concept to fully enjoy this remake of a prequel, and all of the silliness within, but the reward is a very solid film.
Meet Will, a scientist whose work looks to revolutionise how we treat alzheimers, driven by his father's own gradual succumbing to the disease. When it seems that they've finally made a break through, the chimpanzee being tested on goes crazy and rampages through the building before being shot dead. The project is closed down, but Will is asked by one of the other workers to smuggle home a baby chimp who was the true cause of the rampage. The drugs that had been tested on the mother had passed to the baby, so Will decides to keep lil' Ceasar and raise him.
This relationship, of course, is the core of the movie. Ceasar's nature is a time bomb, and Will's struggles against his dad's mortality are more a case of him accepting that there is only so much he can do in the face of aging and death. It's emotional struggles and character motivations that drive the plot forward, so the movie is more than just a sci-fi action flick. Set pieces are not far away here, however, so the movie avoids being too slow or introspective. The strong character focus is strongly paced and lends depth to an altogether decent story.
The film dips into cheesiness at many points, and some aspects of the story do feel a little clunky. Near the start, the film demonstrates Hollywood speak that seems to sell it as cliche filled story, but before long I found myself being won over. Before long the cheesiness kind of works in its favour, and later on the film makes a move that really takes suspension of disbelief to the edge, culminating in an incredibly powerful moment.
There is an incredibly subtle line going through the film too, that sets up future events in the franchise without slowing down or clogging up the narrative. Seeds are sown as a result of many of the action in this film that will come to dictate the future events. As a prequel, it integrates these very necessary things without going against canon or overbalancing its own narrative. Everything feels like a very natural product of the story. Like X-Men, it's a lesson in balancing the prequel as a set-up and as a story in it's own right.
At the end of the day, the film's first priority is it's characters, and that is what makes this more than really it should have been. The film works hard to make you invested, and the result, whilst full of logic holes, becomes compelling because of what these plot developments mean to the characters. Definitely a worthy watch.
Thursday, 25 August 2011
Film Review - The Grudge
tl;dr Don't bother, check out the Japanese one instead.
My viewing of this film, undoubtedly, was biased by the fact that I had already seen the Japanese source film, Ju-on. Ju-on holds quite the significance for me too, as it terrified me so much that since I saw it no horror movie since has really scared me. It's the movie that hardened me from coward to someone who can now stomach most horror. When watching the American adaptation I was unable to forget the original, so remember that throughout this review the ghost of the original is hanging over my experience of the Hollywood remake, even when I'm not directly comparing them.
The movie starts off on a note that is unnecessarily confusing - it remakes the movie with white protagonists, almost everyone important is white, yet retains it’s setting in Japan. This results in a perplexing movie that just seems whitewashed. Just setting the film in America would make much more sense, but in the highly homogeneous Japan, having so many white people so well placed to fill all of the major roles in this story beggars belief.
Such concerns are not necessarily all that important if the characters and plot are good. We join our intrepid cast with a suicide, a man walking off a roof for unexplained reasons. Then we see a Japanese carer, looking after a scared old woman, before she ventures deeper into the house and ascends, with classic horror movie canniness, to the attic where a ghost woman takes her. After these two preludes we meet our protagonist, the new carer, an American student studying in Japan and her American boyfriend. When she goes to care for the woman, she encounters the ghost woman and is dragged into the nightmare.
They fall flat pretty damn quickly - the closest we get to a compelling character is the man who committed suicide, Matthew Williams, and only in comparison with the flatness of Karen Davis can we even pretend that he is a compelling character. The plot is something of a muddled affair too, bringing in a tad too many subplots that seemed to be more an excuse to get the source’s memorable set pieces in as big a volume as possible. Whilst some of the subplots do ultimately tie up quite cleverly together, the main ghost story ends really messily and in very much an unsatisfactory nature.
But forget that, this is a horror. If a horror is scary, it really does not need to be anything else. The original certainly succeeded, above all else, on that level. There’s a few scenarios, taken straight out of the original, that certainly have power, but more often than not the pay-off would not be equal to the build-up. A memorable moment early on, where the shadow bleeds out of the wall and becomes the woman looks laughably fake. This is a movie that can create tension, but delivers very little in the way of fear.
The heart of the movie is that the house is cursed, because of death due to strong, negative emotions. The curse spreads to anyone who goes to that house and spreads over and multiplies when other people are killed elsewhere. In this concept is the theme of violence, and the cyclic nature of it. It has been a while since I saw the original, but I was interested in the curse as a metaphor for how death and violence could spread almost like a disease. This interesting idea never really gels in the Hollywood version and the whole thing just seems a lot more shallow.
There’s no good reason to see this movie, quite simply, unless you demand the familiar production values of Hollywood or don’t know how to read subtitles. If The Grudge tickles your fancy then watch the Japanese one, not the watered down Hollywood remake.
My viewing of this film, undoubtedly, was biased by the fact that I had already seen the Japanese source film, Ju-on. Ju-on holds quite the significance for me too, as it terrified me so much that since I saw it no horror movie since has really scared me. It's the movie that hardened me from coward to someone who can now stomach most horror. When watching the American adaptation I was unable to forget the original, so remember that throughout this review the ghost of the original is hanging over my experience of the Hollywood remake, even when I'm not directly comparing them.
The movie starts off on a note that is unnecessarily confusing - it remakes the movie with white protagonists, almost everyone important is white, yet retains it’s setting in Japan. This results in a perplexing movie that just seems whitewashed. Just setting the film in America would make much more sense, but in the highly homogeneous Japan, having so many white people so well placed to fill all of the major roles in this story beggars belief.
Such concerns are not necessarily all that important if the characters and plot are good. We join our intrepid cast with a suicide, a man walking off a roof for unexplained reasons. Then we see a Japanese carer, looking after a scared old woman, before she ventures deeper into the house and ascends, with classic horror movie canniness, to the attic where a ghost woman takes her. After these two preludes we meet our protagonist, the new carer, an American student studying in Japan and her American boyfriend. When she goes to care for the woman, she encounters the ghost woman and is dragged into the nightmare.
They fall flat pretty damn quickly - the closest we get to a compelling character is the man who committed suicide, Matthew Williams, and only in comparison with the flatness of Karen Davis can we even pretend that he is a compelling character. The plot is something of a muddled affair too, bringing in a tad too many subplots that seemed to be more an excuse to get the source’s memorable set pieces in as big a volume as possible. Whilst some of the subplots do ultimately tie up quite cleverly together, the main ghost story ends really messily and in very much an unsatisfactory nature.
But forget that, this is a horror. If a horror is scary, it really does not need to be anything else. The original certainly succeeded, above all else, on that level. There’s a few scenarios, taken straight out of the original, that certainly have power, but more often than not the pay-off would not be equal to the build-up. A memorable moment early on, where the shadow bleeds out of the wall and becomes the woman looks laughably fake. This is a movie that can create tension, but delivers very little in the way of fear.
The heart of the movie is that the house is cursed, because of death due to strong, negative emotions. The curse spreads to anyone who goes to that house and spreads over and multiplies when other people are killed elsewhere. In this concept is the theme of violence, and the cyclic nature of it. It has been a while since I saw the original, but I was interested in the curse as a metaphor for how death and violence could spread almost like a disease. This interesting idea never really gels in the Hollywood version and the whole thing just seems a lot more shallow.
There’s no good reason to see this movie, quite simply, unless you demand the familiar production values of Hollywood or don’t know how to read subtitles. If The Grudge tickles your fancy then watch the Japanese one, not the watered down Hollywood remake.
Friday, 19 August 2011
Film Review - Captain America: The First Avenger
tl;dr If you liked Thor or Iron Man, watch it. If you didn't, don't. This a cheesy and earnest action film and there's lots of fun to be had.
I don't like Captain America. Stupid concept, stupid costume and utterly bland character. He's never been a character that has given me reason to care, nor one who really seems to have a USP beyond empty-minded nationalism. Marvel, however, have been taking properties that I either dislike or don't care about - Iron Man, Thor and most prominently X-Men - and making surprisingly solid and entertaining movies. The other pre-Avengers movies - Iron Man and Thor - had shown both a consistent tone and upwards trend in quality, so I found myself going into a movie starring Captain America with fairly high expectations. The movie did not disappoint, and proved that there's nothing particularly wrong with the character, so long as the execution is good.
Meet Steve Rogers (a man with such a singularly forgettable name that I had to Wiki it three time for this review): he wants to join the army, but as an asthmatic man of noticeably minature physical presence he is laughed out of every botched attempt to join. He continues to try however, earnestly fesiring a chance to stand-up to the cruel and power-abusers of the world. Such pure moral sentiment doesn't come across as obnoxious or annoying because of his innocence and his weak physical state. One day his desire to do good is noticed and he is offered a chance to serve his country, undertaking experimental treatment to make him a super soldier. Thus, Captain America is born.
What makes this hero - a bastion of compassion and heroicness as well as near physical perfection - continue to avoid being an obnoxious annoyance is the fact that he then goes on to become a piece of propoganda. Even though he is now a one-man army, he's still failing to fight and lay down his life as he desires. Thus, when the inevitable rise to action occurs, our hero has really earned his right to kick ass. The impossible odds the hero overcomes, his amazing physical prowess: we don;y begrudge him any of it.
The movie takes it's own ridiculous premise seriously, and through this we can also take the premise seriously. None of this "that mask is stupid" Green Lantern stuff, pointers have been taken from Thor in this one. This movie thinks it's as genuine a triumphant and heroic story as any, and such is it's earnest enthuaism that it is hard not to get caught up. This is pulpy WWII action, full of comic book silliness and war film bravado - making it a dramatic fare that people would take seriously was always going to be a big ask.
There is nothing here that will challenge or provoke, but there's buckets that will entertain. Captain America takes characters and plots at their most basic and does them right. It looks good, is paced well and it's certainly not lacking in cleverness.
I don't like Captain America. Stupid concept, stupid costume and utterly bland character. He's never been a character that has given me reason to care, nor one who really seems to have a USP beyond empty-minded nationalism. Marvel, however, have been taking properties that I either dislike or don't care about - Iron Man, Thor and most prominently X-Men - and making surprisingly solid and entertaining movies. The other pre-Avengers movies - Iron Man and Thor - had shown both a consistent tone and upwards trend in quality, so I found myself going into a movie starring Captain America with fairly high expectations. The movie did not disappoint, and proved that there's nothing particularly wrong with the character, so long as the execution is good.
Meet Steve Rogers (a man with such a singularly forgettable name that I had to Wiki it three time for this review): he wants to join the army, but as an asthmatic man of noticeably minature physical presence he is laughed out of every botched attempt to join. He continues to try however, earnestly fesiring a chance to stand-up to the cruel and power-abusers of the world. Such pure moral sentiment doesn't come across as obnoxious or annoying because of his innocence and his weak physical state. One day his desire to do good is noticed and he is offered a chance to serve his country, undertaking experimental treatment to make him a super soldier. Thus, Captain America is born.
What makes this hero - a bastion of compassion and heroicness as well as near physical perfection - continue to avoid being an obnoxious annoyance is the fact that he then goes on to become a piece of propoganda. Even though he is now a one-man army, he's still failing to fight and lay down his life as he desires. Thus, when the inevitable rise to action occurs, our hero has really earned his right to kick ass. The impossible odds the hero overcomes, his amazing physical prowess: we don;y begrudge him any of it.
The movie takes it's own ridiculous premise seriously, and through this we can also take the premise seriously. None of this "that mask is stupid" Green Lantern stuff, pointers have been taken from Thor in this one. This movie thinks it's as genuine a triumphant and heroic story as any, and such is it's earnest enthuaism that it is hard not to get caught up. This is pulpy WWII action, full of comic book silliness and war film bravado - making it a dramatic fare that people would take seriously was always going to be a big ask.
There is nothing here that will challenge or provoke, but there's buckets that will entertain. Captain America takes characters and plots at their most basic and does them right. It looks good, is paced well and it's certainly not lacking in cleverness.
The social thematics of Harry Potter
So a mate of mine has recently become a big fan of Avatar: The Last Airbender, and in the ensuing discussion a comparison with JK's omnipresent HP series came up. My ensuing thoughts are rather too big to fit in a comment, so I figure that a blog post - amidst the current drought of them - would be a good way to go:
Harry Potter is very much a Campbellian tale of heroism, and as such heroism is positioned at the centre of the story. In this story heroism appears to be represented by Griffindor, one of the two most prominent "houses" of Hogwarts - very much a British way of doing things. Harry becomes part of Griffindor because he chooses to be so - telling the Sorting Hat he does not want to be in Slytherin - and he informs other people that this possible, thus telling people that they can choose their own destiny. So the overall message is that you too can be a hero, right?
Here's where things get messy.
The problem is, the house structure is not well defined at all. Griffindor are heroic, Ravenclaw are academic, Hufflepuff are clumsy and earnest and Slytherin are contradictory. Through her characters JK tells us that Slytherin are the house of power, but through the plot she tells us that they are the house of misuse of power and miscellanious evil. Ravenclaw and Hufflepuff, beyond the listed traits, are not developed at all and very much pushed to the back of the plot. This results in a straight up Griffindor vs Slytherin dynamic which unashamedly evokes good vs evil.
For the theme of choice really to have any impact, Slytherin should get a chance to redeem itself, or someone who really represents Slytherin. Sure, Snape turns good in the end, but he doesn't really represent anything about Slytherin. Malfoy tried to be used to show this - and he, indeed, would be exactly the right character to show this - but instead of choosing to fight against Voldemort and prove that he can still choose to be a hero, he instead is cast as a poor snivelling figure, rescued once again by our dashing hero. Although it's not her intention, at this point JK's essentially saying "alas, how poor the man who is born evil!" If we are to take the theme of chocie seriously then we have to see it in action. Hell, in the final movie (and the book if I remember correctly) and Voldemort is coming to Hogwarts, do any of the Slytherin pupils stand up to the dark lord and show that they can be more? No, they are just locked in the dungeon.
So yes, you get one choice, but once that's done you're fucked. You can either be Griffindor (good), Hufflepuff or Ravenclaw (nobody) or Slytherin (evil) - if you chose wrongly, you better start praying that reincarnation is real.
The themes get even more worrying, however. Rowling's story is an ostensensibly British one and as with most contempory works from these isles it is mainly concerning class. The sneering Malfoys are slimy charicatures of the upper class and the many-child hand-me-down wearing Weasleys are a portrait of working class stereotypes. Whilst the aristocratic Malfoys are, of course, evil - the only notable exception being Malfoy's mum. The Weasleys have Percy, a traitor who leaves them to get a job assisting the minister himself. Working for the man! Whilst that last point may not be serious there is certainly the theme that working class people are good and upper class people are evil, unless you are a mother.
It's in the Black household that, really, JK tries to show how the upper class can be good peopel too. The Black household is perhaps the most relevant portrayal of the traditional English upper class, actually quite poor and with a house full of memories and antiques. There is something uncomfortable about the only good posh people being poor, drawing a probably unintentional conclusion that money equals evil. Only our pure hero can resist it's corruption, and mothers.
The family unit is another big thing here. This is the most personal to ol' HP, what with his parents being visited by the reaper when he was young, and it is also perhaps the best executed theme in the story. It is really quite simple: family is good. It's not cluttered or contradictory, and simple enough to be effective without ever being a proper exploration of the idea. Family love seems to be the most powerful force in the HP universe.
Elsewhere, I've written about her treatment of otherness and slavery, so I'll just link that here to save you from the lecture.
So yeah: Harry Potter is an imaginative tale with likeable characters, but I don't see any sort of real depth. Mishandled themes, sure, and troubling conclusion, certainly, but what I'm really trying to say is that it's not worth trying to justify on a level of depth and complexity.
Harry Potter is very much a Campbellian tale of heroism, and as such heroism is positioned at the centre of the story. In this story heroism appears to be represented by Griffindor, one of the two most prominent "houses" of Hogwarts - very much a British way of doing things. Harry becomes part of Griffindor because he chooses to be so - telling the Sorting Hat he does not want to be in Slytherin - and he informs other people that this possible, thus telling people that they can choose their own destiny. So the overall message is that you too can be a hero, right?
Here's where things get messy.
The problem is, the house structure is not well defined at all. Griffindor are heroic, Ravenclaw are academic, Hufflepuff are clumsy and earnest and Slytherin are contradictory. Through her characters JK tells us that Slytherin are the house of power, but through the plot she tells us that they are the house of misuse of power and miscellanious evil. Ravenclaw and Hufflepuff, beyond the listed traits, are not developed at all and very much pushed to the back of the plot. This results in a straight up Griffindor vs Slytherin dynamic which unashamedly evokes good vs evil.
For the theme of choice really to have any impact, Slytherin should get a chance to redeem itself, or someone who really represents Slytherin. Sure, Snape turns good in the end, but he doesn't really represent anything about Slytherin. Malfoy tried to be used to show this - and he, indeed, would be exactly the right character to show this - but instead of choosing to fight against Voldemort and prove that he can still choose to be a hero, he instead is cast as a poor snivelling figure, rescued once again by our dashing hero. Although it's not her intention, at this point JK's essentially saying "alas, how poor the man who is born evil!" If we are to take the theme of chocie seriously then we have to see it in action. Hell, in the final movie (and the book if I remember correctly) and Voldemort is coming to Hogwarts, do any of the Slytherin pupils stand up to the dark lord and show that they can be more? No, they are just locked in the dungeon.
So yes, you get one choice, but once that's done you're fucked. You can either be Griffindor (good), Hufflepuff or Ravenclaw (nobody) or Slytherin (evil) - if you chose wrongly, you better start praying that reincarnation is real.
The themes get even more worrying, however. Rowling's story is an ostensensibly British one and as with most contempory works from these isles it is mainly concerning class. The sneering Malfoys are slimy charicatures of the upper class and the many-child hand-me-down wearing Weasleys are a portrait of working class stereotypes. Whilst the aristocratic Malfoys are, of course, evil - the only notable exception being Malfoy's mum. The Weasleys have Percy, a traitor who leaves them to get a job assisting the minister himself. Working for the man! Whilst that last point may not be serious there is certainly the theme that working class people are good and upper class people are evil, unless you are a mother.
It's in the Black household that, really, JK tries to show how the upper class can be good peopel too. The Black household is perhaps the most relevant portrayal of the traditional English upper class, actually quite poor and with a house full of memories and antiques. There is something uncomfortable about the only good posh people being poor, drawing a probably unintentional conclusion that money equals evil. Only our pure hero can resist it's corruption, and mothers.
The family unit is another big thing here. This is the most personal to ol' HP, what with his parents being visited by the reaper when he was young, and it is also perhaps the best executed theme in the story. It is really quite simple: family is good. It's not cluttered or contradictory, and simple enough to be effective without ever being a proper exploration of the idea. Family love seems to be the most powerful force in the HP universe.
Elsewhere, I've written about her treatment of otherness and slavery, so I'll just link that here to save you from the lecture.
So yeah: Harry Potter is an imaginative tale with likeable characters, but I don't see any sort of real depth. Mishandled themes, sure, and troubling conclusion, certainly, but what I'm really trying to say is that it's not worth trying to justify on a level of depth and complexity.
Monday, 15 August 2011
Film Review - Horrible Bosses
This is a tricky review, and likely to be short. For all that I'm no fan of these modern mainstream comedies, which are absurd and irevererant in a restrained and stylish way, I'm willing to admit that they are not a bad way to spend an evening. Horrible Bosses, which is about as by-the-numbers as you can find, is nonetheless
entertaining and amusing.
We all hate our bosses right (my boss is alright actually)? And for our three protagonists are no different - they are, in fact, rather more pronounced. Nick can't stand up to his mocking and overbearing boss played by the ever intimidating Kevin Spacey; Dale is a man who is happy in love and engaged to marry, yet having to try and stave off the sexual advances of his boss; Kurt was the boss's left hand man and set to take over before an accident left the man's cokehead son in charge. Together they decide that their bosses have to die.
The script isn't particularly strong, but the performances and direction makes the film easy and funny to watch. You'll have a hard time taking anything memorable about this, and it's the bosses that'll be the ones that stand out strongest. Kevin Spacey is more or less the centre piece of the film, bringing dark sensibilities and an intimidatingly funny performance. Colin Farrell demonstrates a funniness in the credit scenes to suggest he was underused. Jennifer Aniston's manipulative and nymphomanic presence is also a well judged balanced between villainy and comedy. With Jamie Foxx making an entertaining appearance as "Motherfucker" Jones, it seems that there is far more fun to be had with the secondary characters. Often I'd have a hard time even physically telling the main cast apart, being made up of the predictable white, American, men in who are stuck between being somewhere young and middle aged.
It's not a great movie, it's not a bad movie. It is, however, a reasonably funny movie. Not much to be lost nor gained.
entertaining and amusing.
We all hate our bosses right (my boss is alright actually)? And for our three protagonists are no different - they are, in fact, rather more pronounced. Nick can't stand up to his mocking and overbearing boss played by the ever intimidating Kevin Spacey; Dale is a man who is happy in love and engaged to marry, yet having to try and stave off the sexual advances of his boss; Kurt was the boss's left hand man and set to take over before an accident left the man's cokehead son in charge. Together they decide that their bosses have to die.
The script isn't particularly strong, but the performances and direction makes the film easy and funny to watch. You'll have a hard time taking anything memorable about this, and it's the bosses that'll be the ones that stand out strongest. Kevin Spacey is more or less the centre piece of the film, bringing dark sensibilities and an intimidatingly funny performance. Colin Farrell demonstrates a funniness in the credit scenes to suggest he was underused. Jennifer Aniston's manipulative and nymphomanic presence is also a well judged balanced between villainy and comedy. With Jamie Foxx making an entertaining appearance as "Motherfucker" Jones, it seems that there is far more fun to be had with the secondary characters. Often I'd have a hard time even physically telling the main cast apart, being made up of the predictable white, American, men in who are stuck between being somewhere young and middle aged.
It's not a great movie, it's not a bad movie. It is, however, a reasonably funny movie. Not much to be lost nor gained.
Wednesday, 10 August 2011
Recent Marvel movies, and thematic conversations, pt. 1
Just seen Captain America, and a review shall shortly be forthcoming. I shall say I greatly enjoyed it, and it continues a trend of Marvel movies being terrifically well handled. However, it continues a trend that I very much approve of - thematic linking of the antagonist and protagonist. This, I figure, deserves a look on its own. Keep in mind I've not seen Iron Man 2. Warning: minor spoilers ahead!
Firstly we have Iron Man. This is the weakest of the films in my opinion, and this is reflected in the relationship. Tony Stark decides to become a man of charity, redeeming him from his beginnings as a super-millionaire weapon weapon dealer. His antagonist is a man who embodies the greed of his past life. By fighting against a man who is this, he's actively battling all of what he used to represent and thus helping to reduce what he used to represent. It's easily the worst example, however, because it's a rather unimaginative and often seen in most action movies. The link somehow doesn't feel as personal, and thee bad guy is not well fleshed out. He feels like generic baddie No.7, a man that, really, could be anyone.
Secondly, we had Thor. This is where things get interesting: in music there is this thing called contrary motion. Contrary motion describes when two melodic lines move in the opposite manner to each other, and in Thor that is exactly what we get. Thor and his brother Loki go on the opposite journey, ending up where the other was at the start of the story. Thor is Odin's golden boy, but he was also a violent, impatient and hotheaded. Not only is his wiser and more considerate brother looked over, but he is not even Odin's real son! Loki tries to emulate Thor, to become like his errant brother, and as such hope that this'll make him usurp Thor in Odin's eyes. Whilst Thor's intensity was down to naivety, Loki's are part of his very capable machinations, and as such they go too far. Thor, on the otherhand, goes to earth and learns humility, being taught that he must consider his actions and that violence is not really an answer.
Like Iron Man, by defeating Loki Thor is exorcising his earlier flaws and defeating them, but more than that the two have real relationship. Loki is jealous of Thor, and rather insane, but they are still brothers and they are brought into conflict by their relationship with their father. Loki, in this respect, is the far more complex figure to look at than our archetype of a hero, but their complex and very understandable conflict brings a thematic depth to the movie that really raises it above your average.
Captain America has an antagonist that is, in marked departure from Loki, basically fucking evil. Red Skull has no real motivation beyond "POWER!" - no, not exactly like Jeremy Clarkson. Actually, both are linked strongly, despite meeting only twice, by their similar physical enhancement at the hands of the same scientist. Both interpret their gifts in differnet ways. Before his superpowering up, Captain America was physically weak but personally the manifestation of compassion and heroism, and he uses his physical enhancements as another to express and fight for these concepts. The Red Skull, however, is the manifestation of bullying and self-centric egomainia. It is only implied, but he sees his scientific intelligence as something that makes him better than everyone else, and when he is physically enhanced it proceeds to persuade him that he has risen above humanity. They represent the opposite in moral philosophy and application of power, and there is a very personal link created by the fact they are the only two super soldiers.
Also, and this is very much in implication only, I like the idea that two have dynamic that somewhat resembles the Thor/Loki one. Both are the product of physical enhancement by the same doctor who definitely functions as a sort of father figure to Captain America at least. He is responsible for both of their physical enhancements - and moral enhancements that are mentioned - and Red Skull's actions could be seen as a way of trying to prove that his ideas are correct, jealous of the way that his morals were rejected but his superhuman brother's was fully embraced. It's not canon, but neither is it particularly contrived, so I think it adds a bit more depth to the movie.
So yeah, that's it for the first part of this analysis. Next time I'm going to be looking at X-Men: First Class and counterpointing it with The Dark Knight, and talking about the practise in general. Hopefully been interesting so far.
Firstly we have Iron Man. This is the weakest of the films in my opinion, and this is reflected in the relationship. Tony Stark decides to become a man of charity, redeeming him from his beginnings as a super-millionaire weapon weapon dealer. His antagonist is a man who embodies the greed of his past life. By fighting against a man who is this, he's actively battling all of what he used to represent and thus helping to reduce what he used to represent. It's easily the worst example, however, because it's a rather unimaginative and often seen in most action movies. The link somehow doesn't feel as personal, and thee bad guy is not well fleshed out. He feels like generic baddie No.7, a man that, really, could be anyone.
Secondly, we had Thor. This is where things get interesting: in music there is this thing called contrary motion. Contrary motion describes when two melodic lines move in the opposite manner to each other, and in Thor that is exactly what we get. Thor and his brother Loki go on the opposite journey, ending up where the other was at the start of the story. Thor is Odin's golden boy, but he was also a violent, impatient and hotheaded. Not only is his wiser and more considerate brother looked over, but he is not even Odin's real son! Loki tries to emulate Thor, to become like his errant brother, and as such hope that this'll make him usurp Thor in Odin's eyes. Whilst Thor's intensity was down to naivety, Loki's are part of his very capable machinations, and as such they go too far. Thor, on the otherhand, goes to earth and learns humility, being taught that he must consider his actions and that violence is not really an answer.
Like Iron Man, by defeating Loki Thor is exorcising his earlier flaws and defeating them, but more than that the two have real relationship. Loki is jealous of Thor, and rather insane, but they are still brothers and they are brought into conflict by their relationship with their father. Loki, in this respect, is the far more complex figure to look at than our archetype of a hero, but their complex and very understandable conflict brings a thematic depth to the movie that really raises it above your average.
Captain America has an antagonist that is, in marked departure from Loki, basically fucking evil. Red Skull has no real motivation beyond "POWER!" - no, not exactly like Jeremy Clarkson. Actually, both are linked strongly, despite meeting only twice, by their similar physical enhancement at the hands of the same scientist. Both interpret their gifts in differnet ways. Before his superpowering up, Captain America was physically weak but personally the manifestation of compassion and heroism, and he uses his physical enhancements as another to express and fight for these concepts. The Red Skull, however, is the manifestation of bullying and self-centric egomainia. It is only implied, but he sees his scientific intelligence as something that makes him better than everyone else, and when he is physically enhanced it proceeds to persuade him that he has risen above humanity. They represent the opposite in moral philosophy and application of power, and there is a very personal link created by the fact they are the only two super soldiers.
Also, and this is very much in implication only, I like the idea that two have dynamic that somewhat resembles the Thor/Loki one. Both are the product of physical enhancement by the same doctor who definitely functions as a sort of father figure to Captain America at least. He is responsible for both of their physical enhancements - and moral enhancements that are mentioned - and Red Skull's actions could be seen as a way of trying to prove that his ideas are correct, jealous of the way that his morals were rejected but his superhuman brother's was fully embraced. It's not canon, but neither is it particularly contrived, so I think it adds a bit more depth to the movie.
So yeah, that's it for the first part of this analysis. Next time I'm going to be looking at X-Men: First Class and counterpointing it with The Dark Knight, and talking about the practise in general. Hopefully been interesting so far.
Monday, 8 August 2011
Late Film Review - Transformers: The Dark Side of the Moon
Just realised I had this thing sitting as a draft for ages. Derp.
tl;dr You know if you're going to like it from the moment you read the title. Some great set-pieces and amusing silliness from the people. There are issues, but Transformers accomplishes what it sets out to do very well.
Or, maybe: Transformers: Dark Side of the Moon - A Defence. Not that, really, this should be they type of film that as a snobbish pseudo-intellectual I really should be defending. The Transformers films are essentially embodiements of some of Hollywood's worst trends, glorying in special effects over characters, fast pace over plot and fart joke level humour over substance.
The thing about criticism, however, is that when you criticise a film, you criticise the film. Attacking the storytelling traditions of the genre is not valid criticism exactly - either evaluate the film at how effectively the film handles its material or devote a discussion to the wider genre and be clear that it's no longer just talking about the film.
So yeah: not only is Transformers DSM a movie about big explosions, impossibly big set pieces and a cast of characters who are essentially all comic relief, it's a film that revels in all of these aspects. Whether intentional or not, I found that there was a lot of amusement to be had by the way that Lebouf SHOUTS ALL OF HIS LINES FOR NO GOOD REASON, and in the cartoonish way that everyone seems to act. These are overblown and silly figures, and no more than a way to frame all the explosions. Only during the finale, when suddenly we're meant to care about the characters, does it fall down - at all other times Bay knows that we're not really going to care about these characters and doesn't bother with the pretense of trying to make us care.
The movie certainly has a style of it's own. Bay's directing isn't run of the mill and he has a keen eye for big shots. Unlike many grim and gritty action flicks nowadays, this is a bright and colourful film, even if it is a little bit garish. Bay's style gives these movies a distinct character of their own, although you may spend a decent amount of time wishing the camera would stop bloody moving.
There are some really cool bad guys in here. Lazerbeak, the evil bird decepticon, is a noticeable presence, but the real star of the show is Shockwave. His giant metallic betentacled form is perhaps the most menacing presence in the film, and certainly the one whose presence you'll enjoy the most. All of the decepticons in this movie, however, do seem to share the same voice. That criticism can be extended to the autobots too - you are going to end up thinking of them as "the blue one" and "the red one". Whilst the humans may all have overblown and silly personalities, few of the robots get any sort of characterisation at all.
This might be a consequence of my low expectations, but the plot actually did have a few surprises for me. It's a movie with a few twists, mostly predictable, but it thunders along at a pace fast enough never to leave you time to actually get your brain involved. Towards the end, the movie becomes really big, with Chicago being ripped to shreds by giant warring robots. Impossible set-pieces are a delight to see, and it definitely feels huge. The film's most major mistake, however, is that the real battle which determines the fate of the world is one that happens between two humans rather than two of the titular transformers. It's not as satisfying or exicting a conflict as putting the conflict between the robots as centre stage.
People love to hate these movies, and I've heard more than a few people gleefully condemning these things. It's not a position I have trouble understanding, but for myself I can't help but feel that this film is enormously entertaining when you take it as what it is. It's not embodying the most sophisticated in cinematic tradition, but that's fine: there's as much a place for this as there is for Black Swan or Submarine in my life.
tl;dr You know if you're going to like it from the moment you read the title. Some great set-pieces and amusing silliness from the people. There are issues, but Transformers accomplishes what it sets out to do very well.
Or, maybe: Transformers: Dark Side of the Moon - A Defence. Not that, really, this should be they type of film that as a snobbish pseudo-intellectual I really should be defending. The Transformers films are essentially embodiements of some of Hollywood's worst trends, glorying in special effects over characters, fast pace over plot and fart joke level humour over substance.
The thing about criticism, however, is that when you criticise a film, you criticise the film. Attacking the storytelling traditions of the genre is not valid criticism exactly - either evaluate the film at how effectively the film handles its material or devote a discussion to the wider genre and be clear that it's no longer just talking about the film.
So yeah: not only is Transformers DSM a movie about big explosions, impossibly big set pieces and a cast of characters who are essentially all comic relief, it's a film that revels in all of these aspects. Whether intentional or not, I found that there was a lot of amusement to be had by the way that Lebouf SHOUTS ALL OF HIS LINES FOR NO GOOD REASON, and in the cartoonish way that everyone seems to act. These are overblown and silly figures, and no more than a way to frame all the explosions. Only during the finale, when suddenly we're meant to care about the characters, does it fall down - at all other times Bay knows that we're not really going to care about these characters and doesn't bother with the pretense of trying to make us care.
The movie certainly has a style of it's own. Bay's directing isn't run of the mill and he has a keen eye for big shots. Unlike many grim and gritty action flicks nowadays, this is a bright and colourful film, even if it is a little bit garish. Bay's style gives these movies a distinct character of their own, although you may spend a decent amount of time wishing the camera would stop bloody moving.
There are some really cool bad guys in here. Lazerbeak, the evil bird decepticon, is a noticeable presence, but the real star of the show is Shockwave. His giant metallic betentacled form is perhaps the most menacing presence in the film, and certainly the one whose presence you'll enjoy the most. All of the decepticons in this movie, however, do seem to share the same voice. That criticism can be extended to the autobots too - you are going to end up thinking of them as "the blue one" and "the red one". Whilst the humans may all have overblown and silly personalities, few of the robots get any sort of characterisation at all.
This might be a consequence of my low expectations, but the plot actually did have a few surprises for me. It's a movie with a few twists, mostly predictable, but it thunders along at a pace fast enough never to leave you time to actually get your brain involved. Towards the end, the movie becomes really big, with Chicago being ripped to shreds by giant warring robots. Impossible set-pieces are a delight to see, and it definitely feels huge. The film's most major mistake, however, is that the real battle which determines the fate of the world is one that happens between two humans rather than two of the titular transformers. It's not as satisfying or exicting a conflict as putting the conflict between the robots as centre stage.
People love to hate these movies, and I've heard more than a few people gleefully condemning these things. It's not a position I have trouble understanding, but for myself I can't help but feel that this film is enormously entertaining when you take it as what it is. It's not embodying the most sophisticated in cinematic tradition, but that's fine: there's as much a place for this as there is for Black Swan or Submarine in my life.
Tuesday, 2 August 2011
Novel Review - Someone Comes to Town, Someone Leaves Town by Cory Doctrow
Cory Doctrow is a man, I am told, of multiple vocations - on top of his sci-fi writings he also spends a lot of time trying to usher us more comfortably into the world of internet. Someone Comes to Town, Someone Leaves Town was a book released free on the webs at the same time as it was published. I might be a young person, but it seems I'm more of an elderly gent in spirit - reading novels or novellas on my computer screen annoys me. Paperbacks all the way.
But in Someone Comes to Town, Someone Leaves Town the sci-fi author brings us the unusual urban fantasy I've ever come across. Reading the blurb makes it sound comedic: one day, two of Alan's brothers turn up on his doorstep. The third of the twins is missing, and since they are Russian stacking dolls they cannot eat. It seems another brother who they tried to murder, Davey, is back and he's looking for vengeance. It's not easy when your dad's a mountain and your mum's a washing machine. On top of this ultra-bizarre situation, he discovers that his nextdoor neighbour has wings and an asshole boyfriend, and soon he's crusading with a local tech-punk to bring the whole area free internet.
It's quite a mix, and all of the different strands aren't linked particularly well until near the end. It feels like they are jsut too arbitrary and different, and the subplot about the girl with wings seems to be missing from the middle of the book. There are a lot of time jumps in this book, flashbacks that are mostly handled well - mostly the flashbacks had been between his growing up and his present. This makes thigns tricky when he starts flashing back to different parts of the present, which confuses the story's progression.
The strangeness of the book is not played for laughs or even for the fantastical: Doctrow treats having a mother who's a washing machine and a brother who is an island as mundane thing. The character has never known anything else, and this is his reality. It's this approach that makes the book such an unnerving one, at times disturbing even. He takes thing that should be farcical and drains away any impulse to laugh. It makes the world he creates strange and compelling and weirdly closer to ours than other urban fantasy I can recall reading.
Identity, of course, is an overriding theme here. Fitting in, and the stress of otherness. Unlike his brothers Alan appears human, but when he grows back a thumb whilst young he realises that he isn't. No one in his family seems to have that set a name either, as Alan is constantly referred to by different names beginning with the letter "A", same with his brothers. The girl with wings tells him that "Mimi" is as good a name as any when he asks her name, and his mum and dad remain nameless.
What made this novel such an unbalancing read was Davey, the antagonist. As antagonist's go, he's properly terrifying and disturbing. He's like a personification of malice and anger, a creature that seems to resemble a child's corpse, yet incredibly strong and dangerous and more than willing to kill people in slow and painful ways. Some of things Davey does during the book leaves you with a really bad taste in your mouth, and I can't help but feel he might be a step too far, making sections of the book unpleasant to read. Nonetheless, I found I was genuinely fearing for the characters, so he was definitely an effective character.
I had a funny journey with Someone Comes to Town, Someone Leaves Town. I read it, and really enjoyed the style. But soon the structure and the disturbing nature of some of the book, coupled with the other plot being not all too engaging (bringing internet to the people) made me pretty sure I was not enjoying myself. Then I finished it, and found myself bursting with praise. This is a remarkable and original book, and complex and interesting one. It's the type of story that is likely to get better after you've read it, sitting and maturing in your mind. I'm glad I read it, and if you can take the premise seriously, definitely check it out.
Monday, 1 August 2011
Film Review - Beginners
Technically, it's not a bad film. The actors do a good job, the music matches the tone, it's well shot and goes at a pace that feels natural and unrushed. There are charming moments, amusing moments and touching moments. The structure of the story jumps about, yet remains remarkably clear. It's a sentimental piece, made to appeal to the emotions.
This is the story of Oliver, a man whose dad has just died. After his mum died a few years prior, his dad came out to him and got a boyfriend. His parents' forty-four year long relationship was fraught with problems, and the idea of identity is one of the keys here. Loneliness, too, and he befriends his dad's snarky dog that can't stand to be without him. At a party he meets an actress, and the two fall, predictably, in love. Predictable plotlines and cliched hijacks ensue.
There is a brooding sense of self-importance about this movie, and the loneliness the protagonist feels is portrayed by long solitary shots. The pretention this movie treats the subject matter with, however, is juvenile - this is an alienated thirteen year old's deviant art account, someone obsessed with their own perceived artistry and wanting to share this new emotion they've invented: sadness. Oh, how poetic are his trials!
This is the movie's main problem: it takes itself too seriously and tries to lend a weight to the main character's dull angstings. The characters are self-absorbed and lack energy, what plot there is is wearyingly predictable and the movie lacks anything that makes it interesting or different. Chuck in a plodding pace and you have an insipid, uninspired and monotonous movie that I really regret giving my money.
Some productivity, some news
Had a lot of trouble sleeping last night. On top of the normal problems (a specific issue that often keeps me up and general insomnia), I'd slept a bit during the day because of my work getting me up at a ridiculous time. What really hit me, however, was a strange, irrational fear of getting eaten alive by a snake. For some reason the image of the snake swallowing me whole and slowly, painfully digesting me would not leave me alone.
*shudder*
But yeah, finished the first part of that Dr Who story I wrote about a while ago. When I start posting other stuffs and have given it a bit of an edit, I'll share it with you lot. Got to edit chapter 5 of the Harry Potter too, try to eliinate the "sketchiness" it falls into, make it's structure a bit more fluid. Been using M'Word so much that everytime I finish a sentence I hit cntrl + S. It's a good sign.
Finished The Unsinkable Walker Bean a moment ago: very good comic, childish but not immature and a bloody good story all round. Will likely check out pt. 2 when it comes out. Also gonna write a perspective on Green Lantern from Rebirth - Sinestro Corps, including both GL and GLC. That's one blog entry really wanna do.
Finally getting round to watching Sherlock. Final episode this wednesday, and expect a review of the three episodes after that. Some more thoughts on Torchwood are likely too.
So yeah, got a lot I want to do. We'll see how much I get done. Peace peeps.
*shudder*
But yeah, finished the first part of that Dr Who story I wrote about a while ago. When I start posting other stuffs and have given it a bit of an edit, I'll share it with you lot. Got to edit chapter 5 of the Harry Potter too, try to eliinate the "sketchiness" it falls into, make it's structure a bit more fluid. Been using M'Word so much that everytime I finish a sentence I hit cntrl + S. It's a good sign.
Finished The Unsinkable Walker Bean a moment ago: very good comic, childish but not immature and a bloody good story all round. Will likely check out pt. 2 when it comes out. Also gonna write a perspective on Green Lantern from Rebirth - Sinestro Corps, including both GL and GLC. That's one blog entry really wanna do.
Finally getting round to watching Sherlock. Final episode this wednesday, and expect a review of the three episodes after that. Some more thoughts on Torchwood are likely too.
So yeah, got a lot I want to do. We'll see how much I get done. Peace peeps.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)