Four Quick Movie Reviews – Percy Jackson and the Sea of Monsters, Gravity, Catching Fire, and The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug

Winter is movie-going season for me. I don’t tend to go to the cinema any other time of year. Perhaps it’s because sitting in a cinema seems more appealing in the cold weather, or perhaps it’s because films I want to see tend to come out around Christmas. And there seem to have been even more than usual that I wanted to see this year! So... on to some quick flash reviews...

Percy Jackson and the Sea of Monsters

Ok, so technically this wasn’t a winter film. I saw it on 6th September, my husband’s and my wedding anniversary. He surprised me with a trip to see this, which is especially sweet because this really isn’t the kind of film John tends to like.

I really enjoyed this. I think they did a good job of translating the book into a film, though perhaps some of Annabeth’s reasoning for mistrusting Tyson wasn’t brought across clearly enough. She just seemed like she was being mean for the sake of it. The action scenes were done well and the monsters and special effects looked really good. I loved how they interpreted Charybdis. I thought some moments were genuinely sweet, and John practically imploded from the cheese factor of some parts (did I mention I love cheese?). All in all, this was a much, much better film than the first one, and I would recommend it to fans of Percy Jackson as well as those who haven’t read the books. Though (of course!) the book is still miles better.

Gravity

Oh my gosh, I enjoyed this one SO MUCH. I was really impressed with the acting, the effects, the music, the direction... everything. I think this is a very good example of a film that plays to the strengths of the medium. I can’t imagine this story told in any other way than as a movie – I was amazed how much I was drawn into it, feeling the main character’s rising panic, yet at the same time a sense of complete awe at her surroundings.

The acting was brilliant in this. Sandra Bullock should definitely be nominated for awards for her performance, which was subtle and powerful. George Clooney’s character was the sort of character that tends to irritate me in other things, but he was perfect here. I thought the themes and overall storyline of the film were compelling and portrayed well, though there was one certain ‘womb’ scene that was almost laughably unsubtle. A wonderful film, and definitely worth seeing!

The Hunger Games: Catching Fire

This is the sequel to The Hunger Games, which I loved. Confession time: I still haven’t actually read Catching Fire yet, so I can’t compare the movie to the book. I really enjoyed the film, and there were parts of it that definitely felt better than the first. Jennifer Lawrence is as amazing as ever, and I thought the new characters were all interesting too, though some were a bit underused.

There were some elements of the plot that I wasn’t so sure about. The twist at the end, while interesting, seemed both a little unrealistic and also cheapened some of the tension and drama from earlier in the movie. I can certainly understand why Katniss was so annoyed. I loved the effects and the action in the movie, and I enjoyed getting to know the world and characters better. Unfortunately, it did have a very disappointing and exasperating end. I know, I know, this is the ending of the book, but that doesn’t mean it had to be the ending of the film too. They could at least have signposted that we were coming to the end. As it was, it hit very suddenly and felt like they’d cut off the last ten minutes of the film.

However, overall this was an extremely fun and enjoyable film, and I can’t wait for the next one!

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug

After a bit of a baffling start, this film continued the story from the previous one nicely, setting up a good pace and feeling much less episodic than the last one. I enjoyed this film more than the first. I thought it had a better sense of story and adventure, and much less random moments. The atmosphere felt more even too, as if this film knew better what it wanted to be.

Unfortunately, what it wanted to be was Lord of the Rings 2.0, which I personally think is a bit of a shame. It didn’t feel anything like The Hobbit (the book), not capturing that same sense of magic and delight, the almost fairytale or folklorish feel, instead becoming a larger story with Weighty Significance. In other words, the attempt to make The Hobbit epic is what spoiled it for me. They constantly referenced The Lord of the Rings in every joke and wink to the audience, until I wanted to throw popcorn at the screen in disgust. They drew out a story that should be much shorter, and the padding really doesn’t make it better. The extra scenes are unnecessary – they don’t add anything to the story of The Hobbit, and so are only meaningful in relation to The Lord of the Rings. Why not just let The Hobbit tell its own story? There are also action scenes that are drawn out far too long, which spoils the tension of those scenes. A later sequence involving Smaug chasing the dwarves, and smashing every support pillar in the entire mountain in the process, is a good example.

And the attempt to make this an epic tale with gravitas and significance beyond its own simple story has also led to other issues that made me grind my teeth a bit. If The Hobbit is The Lord of the Rings 2.0 then Thorin is certainly portrayed whenever possible as another Aragorn. He is the Rightful Heir to the throne, a reluctant leader who must rise to the calling of his Noble Blood, who is Destined to blah blah blah. This film isn’t the story of Bilbo; it’s the story of Thorin Oakenshield, and that, for me, is the biggest shame of all.

Top Ten Bookish Memories

Time for Top Ten Tuesday, hosted by The Broke and the Bookish, and this week it's our Top Ten Bookish Memories.

Lots of firsts on this list! In no particular order, my ten twelve best bookish memories are:

1) Starting the blog - Deciding to start this blog was such a good decision! At first I wasn't sure what to blog about; I just knew that I wanted to blog. I'd just joined Blockbusters and had been given a 14-days-of-free-films voucher, so I thought - why not reviews? Naturally, this became nearly all book reviews, with some films and games as well, and the blog has now become such a great reflection of me and my loves! And when the blog's still in its very early days, that first little face popping up on Google Friend Connect... so exciting. :-)

It will be my first blogiversary in April, and I'm sure that milestone will be another best bookish memory!

2) First review copy - This was from an indie author, a lovely woman called Greselda Heppel, and thankfully I really enjoyed her book (Ante's Inferno). Being asked to read and review someone's book, because they put value on my opinion - that's an amazing feeling!

3) First book convention - Such an amazing experience! Went from extremely nervous and not knowing anyone, to chatting quite naturally with people and going to get food with them by the end of the day. Everyone is so friendly at book conventions, and everyone will happily talk about book for hours - rooms full of my kind of people! Plus, meeting authors and hearing them read from their books is a pretty squee-inducing experience. I'll be going to conventions every year from now on!

4) Mr. Bankvole - When I was very young my dad used to make up and tell me stories about Mr. Bankvole and other wildlife living by a river. He'd do all the voices. I can still remember these so well!

5) Reading the final Harry Potter book - What a moment! Ending that series that I grew up with. Amazing, but also very sad.

6) Reading Howl's Moving Castle (and every re-read) - This is my special book, the one that will always give me a happy feeling.

7) First short story acceptance - Okay, this one's more writing than reading related, but this was such an incredible feeling!

8) First Read-a-thon - This was the 'Magnificently Magic Read-a-thon' hosted by Faye at A Daydreamer's Thoughts. I had so much fun doing this, and now I look out for as many read-a-thons as I can - I love them!

9) Being credited as an editor of a novel for the first time - This was a long time ago, but I still remember the excitement. Crashin' the Real by Deb Hoag. My name in the front of the book, and in her acknowledgements! Squeal!

10) Being accepted to write articles and book reviews for Fantasy Faction - One of the biggest genre sites online! I love this site and the people there, and being part of the staff writing team is wonderful!

Okay, I'm a big cheating cheater, because I'm going for two more...

11) Winning the first Book Drum competition - I won the competition for my profile of Homer's Odyssey, a fantastic story that I've loved for a long time.

12) Writing for the Fantasyland Herald - Because this is just so much fun, and sure to spark plenty more great memories!


What about you? What are your best bookish memories? Anything you're looking forward to or hope to achieve?

The Hobbit - Film Review

This probably doesn’t need much introduction, as it would be pretty hard not to be aware of The Hobbit by this point. The news that the story has been split into three films has been met with quite a lot of scepticism (the book is shorter than any one of the three Lord of the Rings books, and those only got one movie each). So, was it a good decision? And does the film live up to the magic of the book, a beloved childhood classic?

Well... not quite. And I think I managed to go into the cinema without too high expectations. The Hobbit isn’t bad, it just isn’t as good as it should have been, and I don’t think the 3-film decision was a good idea.

My husband and I were talking about it before going in, wondering just how on earth they were going to get three long movies out of the book. I joked that it would probably take an hour for them to even leave the Shire. Oh dear, be careful what you joke! It wasn’t an hour exactly – more like 50 minutes. As in, if this were a TV series, one whole episode would have been dedicated to setting the scene, meeting the characters, and then setting off on the quest. This would actually have been great if it were a TV show, but it wasn’t, and I do think things need to move a little quicker in movies.

The Harry Potter Studio Tour

On Saturday I went to the Harry Potter Studio Tour near London. This is a big site with two hangars full of Harry Potter stuff – memorabilia, costumes, sets, models, props, animatronics, concept art, architectural models, special effects, and tons of information about the making of the Harry Potter movies. Between the hangars is an outside area where you can stop for a glass of butterbeer and hop on the Knight Bus... or take a picture of yourself driving crashing the Weasleys’ car. So much fun!

Economics in Spec Fic - Podcast

In my last post I reviewed the latest issue of Clarkesworld magazine, in which an article on economics in speculative fiction particularly seized my imagination. I wished that the article could have gone a little deeper into economics in popular fiction, as well as into some well-known sci-fi such as Star Trek, but this was beyond the scope of the article. The article provided fascinating ideas about how to include economics and trade when world-building, but it left me wondering - what is the potential future of economics? Are the futures presented in some science fiction novels - and all the currently-popular dystopia stories - actually possible or realistic?

Then I came across this interview with Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman, in which he discusses economics in science fiction and fantasy, with John Joseph Adams and David Barr Kirtley from the podcast 'Geek's Guide to the Galaxy' (which is well worth checking out, by the way). Clearly economics is a hot topic in spec fic right now, and this interview is fascinating.

Just some of the subjects covered: Asimov, The Foundation and psychohistory; how alien attack will end the recession in 18 months; socialism and capitalism in sci-fi; the economics of building a death star; Star Trek's utopian vision; and what evil will really look like in the future.

Listen to the interview here.

Geek's Guide to the Galaxy.

2 Weeks of Movies Comes to an End

So, that was my two weeks of free movie rentals. Some good films, some fairly good, some shockers, and a few average ones. Not bad for a bunch of freebies!

Thank you Blockbuster!

 Now, I wonder if I can find someone willing to give me free books...

 

2 Weeks of Movies -Cowboys and Aliens

Cowboys and Aliens - 5.5/10

(Warning! One fairly big spoiler and some other smaller ones!)

I chose this one hoping for a bit of really stupid fun. I was hoping, to be honest, for exactly what it said on the box – cowboys, and aliens (translation: lots of cheese). What I got was really stupid, that’s for sure, and admittedly most of the time it was quite fun. Yet, I just didn’t feel that it ever reached the potential that such an epic title suggested. It just wasn’t quite fun enough.

The cowboys element was good. I have no gripes about the cowboys. They were tough, brave, lovable rogues, and they included Harrison Ford. There were guns, horses, bandits and ‘Injuns’. There was a gruff but kind preacher, a mysterious wanted man who takes the law into his own hands, the wet son of a rich rancher who was anxious to prove himself, and various other staples of the Wild West. They reacted to the aliens in exactly the right way: ‘what are they, could they be demons, they’re a damn site more powerful than us that’s for sure, but, what the heck... let’s kill ‘em anyway. Posse time!’

It’s a shame the aliens weren’t done so well. In fact, they felt like a bit of an afterthought, which is strange considering they were the other 50% of the concept. Weird, ugly, scrabbly ape like things with big teeth... well, at least it’s nice to see the apetroll from Super 8 getting more work. Their look wasn’t inspiring or frightening, just a bit lazy and boring. They had the technology to zap the entire world into oblivion, but still prefer to run at their attackers, jump on them and claw them to death. This is when they are being attacked with guns, and in fact possess much better guns themselves. And then you have to wonder why they’re mining gold on a scouting mission, and if it is a scouting mission why they aren’t heading straight back to their planet to tell their mates what wusses we all are on Earth, and if it is in fact a mining mission why they haven’t blasted every town for hundreds of miles? Why take prisoners, burn a few houses and leave the rest? Oh right, experiments. Aliens love to experiment for some reason. To find weaknesses, the justification is. You’d think ‘die like insects when shot with giant laser guns’ would be enough of a weakness to make further testing a little redundant.

So the aliens, as is often the case, are stooopid. But clever enough to build spaceships that can presumably travel FTL. And have the war skills to destroy the homeworld of another alien being who can shapeshift, travel to Earth, work out how to manipulate an alien gun into a bomb, and blow up the whole alien spaceship with ease. So if they can obliterate such an advanced alien race, why are they having such trouble with the cowboys? And why in the name of all that is holy aren’t they just shooting them with their superior alien laser guns?

Yep, this is bang your head against the wall kind of stuff. Add to this some fairly lazy storytelling, the odd plot hole, and a baffling plot twist that needlessly only opened up further plot holes, and you can see why the movie isn’t thought very highly of. However, none of this would have been a problem for me if the film had embraced its silliness a little more and just gone for it with the full-on cheese factor. But it didn’t. The parts that were told with a twinkle in the eye were good, but the bits that were trying to be too serious just failed utterly. And while the concept was a great one, the aliens themselves were just too uninteresting and exasperating to make it work. What a shame!

2 Weeks of Movies - Tintin

Tintin: The Secret of the Unicorn - 6/10

(some small spoilers)

I loved Tintin when I was younger, so I was quite excited about this one. Great characters, so many fantastic stories to choose from, and Spielberg directing. The chances of it being something great were pretty high. Unfortunately, while there were parts of it that I thought were done very well, overall this was slightly disappointing.

I found some of the characters spot on. Haddock was brilliant, and Thompson and Thomson were perfect. Villains and side characters had just the right mix of personality and slightly Victorian melodrama. Snowy was snowy. Tintin, however, just... lacked something. And I can’t quite put my finger on what. His animation was good, his look was just right, he had the right sort of ageless feeling about him, Jamie Bell did a truly excellent job with the voice acting... so, what was wrong? There was just something missing, something of the Tintin charm, something that made this Tintin slightly irritate me whereas the real Tintin never would. Something almost sarcastic in his expressions that was perhaps the result of the 3D style animation. Did I simply have impossible expectations? Maybe. But it was slightly off-putting, nevertheless.

The humour in the film was generally good, particularly when Haddock was involved (though burping into the plane’s engine was a little much), and at first the atmosphere managed to find the right mix of exciting and intriguing. Escaping from Haddock’s ship was probably the best part of the film. After this, the film perhaps suffered from one chase scene too many. Yes, Tintin is pretty much adventure personified, but that doesn’t mean the film needs to resemble a Prince of Persia video game. After all, he is a reporter, and this is a Tintin movie. Audiences do expect investigation. In the face of what felt like a slightly desperate attempt to keep action up at all costs, I began to lose a sense of where the plot was going, and I lost interest in the mystery. It even became a bit boring at points. It’s not a good sign that the Thompson and Thomson wallet-stealing sub-plot was probably more compelling than the actual movie’s storyline. The film really began to get tedious with the introduction of the giant crane fight – unnecessary, over-the-top, and eye-rollingly stupid. Thankfully, it wasn’t far from here to the end.

What started as a clever, intriguing and enjoyable film worthy of the great Tintin name quickly lost its umph. The film wasn’t bad, but a film about Tintin should have been so much better. It should have been magical, it should have been charming, it should have winked at and grinned at and amazed the audience the entire way through. I would have liked it to have that same certain something that Indian Jones films possess. I should have emerged in a little bubble of nostalgic joy. I didn’t. I wouldn’t say the film was bad, or that it wasn’t worth seeing. But it was disappointing.

2 Weeks of Movies - Thor

Thor - 6/10

(quite a lot of spoilers!)

Appropriately enough, considering all the Avengers buzz, my next film is Thor. My response and my husband’s were divided on this one. He really didn’t like it; I thought it was fairly enjoyable, though the way the plot unravelled was a little disappointing.

The standard thing to do with superheroes is to start off with their origin story. Makes sense, especially for those with a particularly good origin story, like Spiderman. Unfortunately, the origin story can sometimes turn out to be the most interesting thing about the superhero, so that future outings with him or her fall a bit flat. Like Ironman. Like, well, everyone except the X-Men, really. Some superheroes even have a whole TV series built around their origin (Superman – Smallville, though I’ve actually never watched it). So tackling the origin story of Thor seems like a good move, and in fact, his origin story does happen to be a very good one. However, what we actually got was a bit of a muddle. The first half of the film was Norsey goodness, in Asgard (which looked FANTASTIC by the way), fighting Frost Giants, being blustery and prideful and generally like a good Viking god. Which was apparently bad... BAD Thor for wanting war. The last thing the king of the Viking gods wants is war. What are you thinking Thor? But anyway, this bit of the film was really very good.

Then Thor got cast out to Earth, and it sort of went downhill a bit from there. Which is a shame because this has the potential to be a really compelling story. Thor, aware of who he is but unable to do anything about it, powerless as a normal human, has to somehow find a place for himself in the world. Good stuff. Didn’t quite translate. What we actually got was a little too much Natalie Portman, and Thor making amusing mistakes because of not knowing how to interact socially in our world. Then a pointless bit with the hammer that felt like it was just there to shoe-horn SHIELD in. A surprisingly emotional bit where Loki visits and Thor begs to come home almost saved it, but then it meandered into more pointlessness. Thor was basically without powers for about one day (which is all it took to fall in love with Natalie Portman, despite there not being much chemistry there), and then straight back to Asgard again for the final fight. Earth was essentially meaningless except as a minor plot point. Doesn’t this miss the point a bit? It didn’t really feel like a superhero film; it felt like a fantasy/sci-fi focused on Norse-gods-as-aliens. I think I would have liked it better if it had just embraced this completely.

Apart from the slightly wonky plotting of the second half, I did enjoy the film. I thought the acting was very good, especially Thor and Loki. Costumes, effects and sets were amazing, and I loved the visualisation of Asgard. This could all have been a bit Flash-Gordon cheesy, but it actually wasn’t. The directing was good, the music was good, everything worked except the plot and the pacing. It did suffer a little, however, from the often inevitable too-much-sympathy-for-the-villain syndrome that these kinds of films produce. I liked Loki better than Thor. Sorry. Couldn’t help rooting for him. I wonder if that will be a problem for me in Avengers? I’ll have to wait and see.

So, while I wouldn’t say this was a bad film, I also wouldn’t say it’s one of the best of the superhero bunch. It would really be worth watching for the Asgard scenes alone, but thankfully there are a lot of other things that pull it up too. I do feel that it was really only the plot and pacing that let it down, mainly because of the need to cover an origin story in a couple of hours, which was perhaps better suited to serialisation. Thor’s acceptance-redemption-recovery arc needed to be slower and more believable. The director also clearly struggled with the need to include SHIELD to set up Avengers. That part really just shouldn’t have been there. If a second Thor film does get made, I’ll be interested to see what it has to offer now that his origin has been established. With the right story, I have a feeling it could be amazing.

2 Weeks of Movies - Rise of the Planet of the Apes

Rise of the Planet of the Apes - 7/10

(some medium-sized spoilers)

This was another video-store-guy recommendation. I remember seeing the trailers for this one and thinking that it looked, frankly, rubbish. Apes become intelligent, rampage, take over the world, lots of CGI and not much else. Right? Wrong.

Although I enjoyed the Cloverfield recommendation more, I was glad I watched this one, if just to prove that you can’t always judge a film by its trailer. Often trailers show all the best bits, heightening anticipation for a movie that in reality flops like a dying fish. This was the opposite; the trailers I saw showed only the rampaging apes scenes, giving the impression of a standard-fare disaster movie propping itself up with the Planet of the Apes name. In reality, the rampaging apes were one tiny bit at the end of a more thoughtful and complex film that was actually ridiculously emotional (I blame James Franco’s puppy face).

The film was surprisingly slow-paced, building the main plot up slowly and taking time to actually make the audience like the little ape and his carer. This was done well. Really well, actually. I’m not an ape person; for example, I’m constantly astonished by people who manage to find monkeys cute (yes yes I know a monkey isn’t technically an ape). That means that this film really had to convince me to feel something for the main ape character, Caesar, which I would have felt automatically for, say, a kitten. But it did manage to. We saw Caesar grow up, we saw his wonderful child-like innocence and curiosity, we saw his love for his human carers, and we saw him begin to interact with the outside world. Then we saw his confusion, his slowly dawning realisation that he is not like others, trapped between the human and animal worlds, too intelligent to fit in. When he poignantly asks Will, his carer, if he is a pet, I actually felt myself go cold and my eyes begin to prick.

Then we saw Caesar’s dismay and his depression, and his agony as he was taken away from the only family he has ever known and put with a bunch of apes that he had no idea how to relate to. We also saw Will’s desperation to get him back. For him, Caesar was like an adopted child, wrenched cruelly away from him. This was all scripted, filmed, and acted so well that it was completely believable and extremely heartbreaking. The CGI used to craft Caesar’s face and his expression-filled eyes was perfect, and Andy Serkis’ acting was spot on. The other apes were also CGI-ed and acted to perfection, adding more pathos as well as a welcome touch of humour to the film. We also get to find out what Draco Malfoy does in his summers away from Hogwarts. Torture apes, apparently.

Although the general story and its twists and turns are nothing surprising – in fact, they are even slightly cliché for science fiction fans – everything plays out so well that this is easily forgiven. The film’s title is slightly misleading, as it does not actually show how the apes managed to take over the planet. This is only the very beginning, the event that slowly began to tip the scales, the summit of the slippery slope. What happens afterwards is only inferred by the existence of the original movie, and the audience must fill in the missing years for themselves. A nice little touch early on in this film references the main character in the original. A suggestion at the end perhaps explains how the intelligence-virus spread over the world, and how the apes managed to take advantage of depleted populations in order to gain control. Still, the details are left a mystery.

This is how to do a prequel. It doesn’t need to be set right before the original film; it doesn’t need to cram in as many character and cameo appearances from the original as it can; it doesn’t need to fill in every hole and explain every little thing, even the things no-one was asking about (midichlorians?); and it certainly doesn’t need to bleach all the mystery out of the original (Star Wars prequels I’m looking at you). A prequel should always add something to the original rather than attempt to take over from it. Well done Rise of the Planet of the Apes. You need to hire a better title-writer though.

No matter how much you think you won’t care about what, when it comes down to it, is actually a fairly overused and obvious story in sci-fi terms, you will probably find that you can’t help it. Caesar is just too sympathetic, the characters too charismatic, and James Franco’s eyes too puppy dog. I didn’t find it groundbreaking, and I wasn’t falling off my seat with excitement, but it was unexpectedly thoughtful and enjoyable. I was impressed.

2 Weeks of Movies - Twilight: Breaking Dawn part 1, and a rant about Twilight in general

 I didn't get a chance to post yesterday's movie review last night, so I've made up for it with an extra long one today, containing bonus ranting about Twilight in general. Remember, all my comments are very subjective and I do know this, but if you disagree I will feed you to the vampire baby. Just saying. Think of all those little needle teeth, chomp chomping, little pudgy baby fingers curling round your thumb as it chomp chomps its way through your neck (which would probably take at least a week). Got nightmares yet? Good.

Twilight: Breaking Dawn, Part 1 - 4/10

(Beware: here be many, many spoilers for all the films, as well as some fairly big Buffy spoilers too. So if you haven’t watched Buffy, look away now – although, shame on you, you really should! In fact, go watch it now.)

This is part 4, part 1, of the Twilight franchise. Unfortunately movie makers seem to be obsessed with the idea of splitting books into two films at the moment, whether they really need it or not. Harry Potter ? – maybe... so they could do justice to the end of such a long-running movie phenomenon. Although when I think of the two films they do just blur together into one in my head. The Hobbit? – that remains to be seen, but I’m worried that what could have been one really amazing film will become two slightly dragged out and watered down films. Twilight: Breaking Dawn? Completely unnecessary, but hey, it does keep the cash cow’s milk a’flowing. And meanwhile, we get to enjoy Bella and Edward’s not-so-forbidden romance a little longer. Yay?

So, to get started, I’ll explain that I have somewhat different views from most about this generation’s marmite craze. People seem to either love Twilight to the point of terrifying obsession, or to hate it with a fiery passion, condemning it as the worst story in the history of stories ever. Really? It’s quite a mediocre little thing to inspire such heights of passion on either side. My view tends to rest pretty squarely along the lines of ‘meh.’ (With the exception of the first movie, which I still insist is unintentional comedy gold.)

Perhaps this is because I really like supernatural and vampire stories. To me, there’s nothing new at all about Twilight (well, ok, the glittering thing), and so nothing really new to hate or blame Stephanie Meyer for. Love affair between mortal and vampire – done so many times I can’t be bothered to reel off a list. And yes, it’s been done well and badly, and certainly worse than Twilight. Lovesick angsty vampires have always irritated me, but I’m hardly gonna blame Stephanie Meyer for that one am I? When others were swooning, I wanted Angel to die Die DIE a horrible fiery tormented death in Buffy the Vampire Slayer (joy at the end of season 2! Depressed resignation in season 3). Spike, on the other hand, I liked. Well, all the other Buffy vamps are good, particularly Drusilla and Darla. Jerry from Fright Night is also a great vampire. Dracula, what can I say? Classic and terrifying. I even like most of Anne Rice’s creations.

Twilight vampires certainly rest on the prissier side of this, but there’s actually nothing inherently wrong with that. I prefer my vampires bloodthirsty and evil, but of course there is always room for different interpretations in an overly-saturated genre (Nowadays, it’s gone the other way, and a bad vampire is actually a breath of fresh air). And teen fiction is certainly the place for it. Teen stories are full of forbidden love, growing up and finding yourself, exploring moral ambiguities, and, yes, angst. Angst may be teeth-grindingly annoying for an adult, but remember how moody you were when you were a teenager? It’s actually very important for at least some teen fiction to explore this. Teens also seem to respond well to stories that explore real world issues in fantasy or science fiction terms. The most asininely stupid criticism of Twilight that I’ve heard is that it’s just a love story with vampires thrown in. Er... of course it is. Plenty of writers do this. In fact, it’s what science fiction is all about. It shows us real world issues or situations through a different lens. Avatar is just Pocahontas or Dances with Wolves with aliens. Take space out of Star Wars and you’d probably have a World War II film. Almost every episode of Buffy is a very clever comment on some aspect of a teenager’s or young adult’s life, dressed up with vampires, witches and pointy stakes. Not all stories do this, but plenty do, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with them.

And, to put the cherry on my playing-devil’s-advocate cake, the Twilight series is phenomenally successful with its intended audience. You can criticise all you like, but if you’re not a 13-18 year old girl then you have to remember that it’s not meant for you. By all means, rant about why you personally don’t like it (I know I intend to), but trying to paint it as the worst thing ever to be made is a little silly. 14 year old girls might think the same about a Batman movie, or Tron, or the Halo games, or Game of Thrones. Most of the world thinks the same about Warhammer books. But they sure are all popular with their audiences.

Good, now that’s out of the way I can give my personal view of the Twilight movies (the books, as always, are a separate case entirely). They’re really not great, but they’re not soul-destroyingly bad either. Come on now. In the first film, the acting was pretty poor, but this does seem to have improved as the series has gone on. The characters are all a little flat and annoying, and that doesn’t really change. It’s hard to get behind Edward and Bella when you spend the entire film wanting them to die horribly, I grant you. However, the music is spot on; it suits the mood perfectly and really complements the film. The camerawork is good, some of the shots of the scenery and locations are gorgeous, and it’s actually an inspiring example of how to use locations to really bring a story to life. The wildness of the scenery, so close to civilisation and yet like another world, the dense mystery of the forests, the mist hanging between the trees, the huge sweeping emptiness, so lonely but so heartbreakingly beautiful – could you actually ask for a better setting for this story? Of course, when all you can find to praise about a movie is the setting... yeah, not good.

Some viewers may have been disappointed by the lack of action in these films, but that would be to miss the point of what the films are actually about. In terms of actually telling the story they want to tell, the pacing is pretty much spot on. It has a very slow build, but romance stories generally do. This isn’t horror or action, people, it’s gothic romance. It needs to be slow and almost torturously moody. Of course, this is all let down by a pretty awful story. No arguing with that one. And I can’t deny that the Twilight phenomena as a whole is immensely fun to make fun of.

However, whereas the first film sits pretty comfortably in ‘so cheesy it’s hilarious’ (it’s the slow-mo that cracks me up. And the glittering of course. And the ‘you smell’ scene that is slightly unfortunately over-acted), the other films just skirt between cringeworthy and boring. I can quite happily add the first movie to my list of cheese-fests, but I would never sit through the others more than once. I’m afraid I have to say the same for Breaking Dawn Part 1. It was mildly interesting; it moved the story along; it had some more nice music and beautiful forests. It also slightly bizarrely and bemusingly jumped the vampire shark and introduced... wait for it, baby vampire! Awwww... wait, no. Ew!

Edward was his usual annoying self and Bella was her usual insipid self. Not so much a problem with the acting as with the characters. In fact, if there’s a prize for acting insipid and still managing to not be the most slap-able person in the room, Kristin Stewart should win it. (Hint - the 'most slap-able' trophy goes to Edward every time). There was also a moment of hope towards the end of the film that Bella would die, but we all know that’s never going to happen. There’s never any real danger or difficulties to deal with in the Twilight world. Fights are tame, no-one dies, Bella gets the guy, even when the guy leaves it’s because he’s just so in love with Bella that he can’t stand screwing up her life, and the aforementioned screwing up Bella’s life consists of making her super strong, super fast, immortal, and really really pretty. And now the one consequence of marrying a dead guy, that she will never be able to have kids, has also been thrown to the wind. Cos, you know, baby vampire! Why not (sigh). And this is my main problem with Twilight. It’s that there are never any real trials or consequences to deal with. It’s pure wish fulfilment, plain and simple. This is why Bella has been accused of being a Mary Sue, and I have to agree with this. Now, I do get the place for wish-fulfilment fantasy, but I just personally don’t like it. It’s not... meaty enough.  

In summary, then, was Breaking Dawn dreadful? No. Was it good? No. Final Assessment? Meh. It’s pretty simple actually. If you like Twilight, you’ll probably enjoy it. If you don’t, don’t bother.

2 Weeks of Movies - Cloverfield

Cloverfield - 7.5/10

(some spoilers, only small, but best avoided if you're not sure)

I somehow managed to miss all the hype for this one. I know I know, what barrel do I stick my head in all day? But I do think I was lucky there, as this is the sort of film you should go into knowing as little about as possible. That said, if you are reading this and haven’t seen Cloverfield but intend to, you might want to stop now.

I have to admit, I was sceptical about this one. The guy in the video shop recommended it, and he had a hard sell, because I strongly dislike found-footage movies. Shaky shaky, sick-making, ohmygodwe’reallgonnadie, more shaky, view of someone’s feet running, crash and boom in the background, people screaming, something interesting must be happening but all I’m seeing is these damn feet running, shaky shaky, uncomfortably zoomed in close-up, more shaky, etc. Not a fan of handheld camera in general, as in most cases I think it’s misused, put in to look cool or arty, or to add unnecessary ‘realism’, especially in fight scenes (and especially when it’s been beautifully choreographed but then for some reason they film it all in handheld technique and you can’t see anything for all the shaking), and found-footage tends to take this to new extremes. Yes, I know the point is that events are being filmed by ordinary people on ordinary cameras, and yes, that’s a great concept, but in reality, it’s just lots of shaking... argh! There’s a reason we admire beautiful camerawork; there’s a reason cameramen are well trained and cinematographers are paid a lot of money; there’s a reason we don’t put poorly shot amateur movies on cinema screens.

I find this easier to explain with a writing analogy. So here we go. Let’s say I want to add realism to my story, so I decide to write a conversation as it would happen in real life:

“Hey” said John.

“Hey” Victoria replied.

“How was your day?”

“Err... it was okay, you?”

“Mmm... yeah okay.”

There was a pause.

“So... ummm, what do you want for dinner?” asked John.

“Errr... Dunno, what do you want?”

“Ummm, not sure. What do you want?”

“I just asked you that.”

“Oh.”

There was another pause.

“We’ve got some chicken that needs using.”

“Yeah.”

“Stir-fry maybe?”

“Errr... maybe. Wait, no, we don’t have any spring onions left.”

“You could go get some.”

“Yeah.”

Pause.

“I could make a chicken casserole, but we’d be eating late.”

“Mmm.”

“So what do you want to do?”

“Errr... I might just order pizza.”

“But the chicken needs using.”

“Oh... right.”

And so on. Yes, realistic. Yes, it makes sense for the characters and the situation. But it’s boring as heck and doesn’t move the plot forwards. It doesn’t add to characterisation because it’s just a meaningless conversation. It’s annoying to read. There are too many pauses, and too much umming and erring. The writing is bad; there’s no skill there, nothing to keep the reader interested. Good writers know not to do this. They know that if they want to make a conversation seem realistic, they can do it artfully. Put the odd ‘err’ and ‘umm’ in, but don’t overload the conversation with them. Add pauses by describing what is happening in the room, or by observing a character’s nervous fidgeting. This has the advantage of adding potential characterisation as well as a little colour. There are other techniques too, but the point is that making something seem realistic, when it is actually being carefully and artistically constructed, is how to succeed. Simply recording a real conversation exactly as it happens, or sticking a cheap camcorder in the hands of someone who doesn’t know how to use it, is not.

Now to Cloverfield. This film was different from other found-footage films I’ve seen, and now I am seriously having to reassess my opinion of the genre. I actually liked it. No, I really liked it. Despite my negative bias, this film won me over, made me actually feel anxious for the characters. The actors did a great job of running around looking constantly scared – found-footage movies must be so draining for actors – and the concept was, while a little standard, very engaging. There were some problems; the plot occasionally dragged, the characters made the obligatory insanely stupid decisions they always do (many facepalms), and it seemed a little weird that the best bit of the whole film was in the subway tunnels where the actual giant monster couldn’t get to them. The monster was in danger of having the film stolen from him by the little critter thingies. Or maybe that’s just because I’ve played too much Fallout 3 and consequently subway tunnels are TERRIFYING to me.

But overall, the film was good, and perhaps the best thing about it was the camerawork. Yes, amazing isn’t it, given the vehemence of the rant above? Here’s why. What this film actually managed to do was present the camerawork as realistic, while at the same time constructing it as carefully as possible to be aesthetically appealing to the viewer. Yes, there was plenty of running and screaming, and yes, there were some of those shoe shots that are so irritating, but amid this were some genuinely inspired camera angles and framing, shots where the background was just as interesting as the crying face in the foreground. And you know what, even the constant shaking didn’t bother me. Perhaps because the actual substance of the film took over and made me forget it, or perhaps because the shaking was incorporated so well that it felt natural rather than annoying. Of course, watching it at home instead of on a giant cinema screen probably helps! I may be revising my opinion of found-footage movies, but I don’t think I’ll be seeing them on the big screen any time soon.

So does Cloverfield live up to the hype? I think so. And I’m glad I was persuaded to see it. Enthusiastic Blockbuster employee, +1. Cloverfield, 7.5/10. Me, don’t judge things before I’ve see them!

2 Weeks of Movies - The Three Musketeers

The Three Musketeers - 6/10

(some spoilers!)

First off, the film isn’t faithful to the book, even though the basic plot elements are there. I don’t see anything wrong with this; The Three Musketeers has been done so many times, it’s nice to see something new in an interpretation of it. So don’t expect it to be the book!

Now, I feel that I liked this one, sort of... against my better judgement. It’s a silly one. Very, very silly. You could play a drinking game of spot the clichés. Almost all the characters manage to be annoying at one point or another. There’s a slightly steampunk element to the giant zeppelin airships, a hint of heist movies, a Mission Impossible style sequence involving Milla Jovovich, as well as a bit of an A-team style special ops feel to it. It’s so many madcap genres rolled into one. And then there’s Orlando Bloom’s hair. Did I mention the silly?

But, come on, doesn’t that sound fun?

It was. Right from the opening sequence, in which the characters are introduced A-Team style, with an action sequence and freeze-frame while their name triumphantly whizzes on screen, I knew I was going to enjoy it. Stupid and corny, yes, but with such a wink at the audience I felt sure this film was going to be fun – and completely nuts. It reminded me a little of the freshness of A Knight’s Tale, reviving a slightly tired genre, and I felt myself being on this film’s side, willing it to win out in the end.

Unfortunately, it didn’t quite hold on to the tongue-in-cheek energy it started with. Parts of it were ridiculously entertaining, but the bits in between, winding down to the slightly lacklustre ending, were, I hate to say it, a bit forgettable. The love story was lame, and, in the face of Orlando Bloom’s superior villainy (yes, I was surprised too), I’d lost interest in the ‘diabolic’ nature of Cardinal Richelieu’s plot by the end. At points the film also managed to descend into being too silly, turning it into some kind of farcical parody that was a little baffling.

Still, being the fan of cheese-fests that I am (not to mention my love of shows such as Charmed and Xena), my silliness tolerance meter is probably higher than most. Air ships that have giant cannon fights with each other and still manage to stay in the sky... bring it on! Milla Jovovich sliding down a corridor on her back to avoid the hair-thin wires that trigger a series of traps, Mission Impossible and Indiana Jones stylee? No problem. Exotic weapons in 17^th century France? Great! Orland Bloom’s hair? Teehee, snort. Love it.

Besides, when the camera sweeps out to reveal an entire fleet of airships loaded with cannons heading out to take over France, I think we know we’re safely in the realms of fantasy/alternative history. And why not? It’s actually a fantastic concept... just a shame it wasn’t pulled off as well as it could have been.

The film has its faults. Many faults, if I’m honest. Strangely though, if you can switch off your preconceptions and any feelings of protectiveness for the book, you may just find yourself having a good time.

2 Weeks of Movies - Monsters

Monsters 0/10

(some fairly big spoilers)

Ugh. Where to start? Well, I genuinely thought I would never have cause to give a movie a zero rating. But here it is. There were literally no redeeming features in this movie for me. It’s just... overwhelmingly bad. Of course, this is massively subjective and I know some people loved it. But this is my review and I’ll whine if I want to! Settled? Good.

The epic badness of this film is so disappointing to me, because the premise is a good one. A scientific mission in space crash-landed somewhere in Mexico. Alien life forms emerged and settled in the area, quickly reproducing. Attempts to eradicate them by the military are still on-going, but have so far failed. A huge area of Mexico and South America has now been fenced off and quarantined, and is known as the Infected Zone. This does not seem to stop the aliens from encroaching on both sides of the zone, wrecking the lives of the people they come into contact with and causing the people there to live in constant fear.

A reporter has been tasked with finding his boss’s daughter, who is a tourist in Mexico, and returning her to safety in the USA. However, when her passport is stolen and the last ferry has departed for the States, they are forced to make their way through the dangerous Infected Zone, and then find a way past the giant wall built across the border of the USA.

I haven’t been providing synopses for the films in these reviews, but it is necessary here in order to demonstrate how much the movie completely fails. And not only fails, but completely wastes what is actually a very good idea for a film.

First, the story itself is excruciatingly slow to get started, and when it does, it’s a boring mess. Very little happens. This, of course, can work really well in some movies. For example, what really happens in Duel beyond a truck driving a bit too close to the back of a car? Yet Duel is an amazing movie, and that’s because of the atmosphere, the tension and the ever present sense of very real danger. The acting is also top notch in Duel. In Monsters, unfortunately, the acting was flat, with very little atmosphere. The two main characters are travelling through the Infected Zone, an area populated by colossal octopus-like monsters that could easily kill them, and that have killed many other humans, but they don’t seem even slightly scared. They just gawp at the jungle around them and make really stupid comments. There is no sense of threat, no sense of sadness at the ruined buildings and broken homes, and not even a particular feeling of wanting to get home. They’re like robots drifting along mindlessly and emotionlessly. And we’re supposed to believe that they fall in love with each other on the way?

The Monsters barely make an appearance. This might be cool, if they were kept mysterious and frightening, always on the edge of the characters’ journey, a constant threat. But instead they just plod through at one point, kill a bunch of people pretty mindlessly, and then plod off again. They’re more animal than monster, you see, just getting on with life heedless of the people they’re stepping on. Again, cool concept, poor execution.

They are seen once more at the end of the film, where they have some kind of alien glow-in-the-dark tentacle sex, then plod off again. No, I’m really not making this up. So when it becomes clear that we are supposed to feel sorry for the aliens, to marvel at their beauty and to reflect that they are just, like us, trying to get on with their lives, it all falls a bit flat. I don’t really give a damn about the monsters, except for hoping that they’re going to eat the main characters before the end of the film (no such luck).

You can tell what this film wanted to be. It wanted to be a touching and unusual love story, as well as a moral tale about humanity’s tendency to consider anything different a ‘monster.’ It also desperately wanted to be an analogy for how Americans treat Mexicans. I could have liked this if it had been done well. I really enjoyed District 9, which does pretty much the same kind of thing, using the aliens to create an analogy for apartheid. And no, I don’t need my films to be full of explosions or directed by Micahel Bay to enjoy them. I’m also not a fourteen year old boy. These seem to be the main insults directed at people who didn’t like Monsters. But really, how can anyone like this? It fails miserably. The romance is boring and unbelievable. The characters could literally be blocks of wood and I would like them better. The monsters are huge octopuses that plod around killing people – so why would I not consider them to be a bad thing? Am I supposed to feel bad that the military is trying to kill them? I guess if we just left them alone then they wouldn’t bother us either, right? Except that they seem to enjoy coming out of the Infected Zone and smashing innocent people’s homes, and there are even two octopuses plodding around on the other side of the giant wall, smashing things in the USA too. Why should I feel sorry for them? Because they have glow-in-the-dark sex? I’m genuinely baffled as to what the director and writers were thinking.

And were we really supposed to feel something about the wall, which is a metaphor so glaringly obvious it felt like the director was hitting me over the head with an ‘Americans are BIG MEANIES’ sign. The main characters are Americans who have lost their passports and are now desperately trying to get into the States from Mexico, but they come up against a big wall separating ‘us’ from ‘them.’ Yes, we get it already. You don’t need the characters to actually spell it out for us. Which they do. From on top of an Aztec pyramid in the middle of the jungle, staring out at the giant wall. (Aztec pyramids lying around in the jungle at the USA-Mexico border?) Obviously, this kind of heavy-handed lecturing is never a good thing in a movie. And to make it worse, the filmmakers do not even seem to really understand their own metaphor. The main couple stand for Mexican illegal immigrants right? They’re trying to get into the USA illegally, after all, and there is a giant wall stopping them. But the giant wall is to stop the monsters. So the monsters are Mexicans? So Mexicans are terrifying monsters who plod around killing people and having tentacle sex? No wonder the USA wants to keep them out! Yes, I know I’m taking this too literally, but it demonstrates how badly thought out the whole thing is.

This movie was so joyless and preachy, I actually hate the fact that I spent time watching the damn thing. I don’t care if it was free, I want my time back! I can’t believe I watched the whole thing. I think I just kept waiting for it to get better, or at least for the Monsters to eat them. Or for something to happen! This was so boring. I would rather watch Conan. I would rather watch Immortals. Heck, I would a million times rather watch Twilight. I would genuinely rather watch the channel that just shows parliament talking to each other – at least it’s funny to watch them attempt to insult each other in their really British, upper-class way. So there you go. Zero stars. Not even glow-in-the-dark tentacle sex could save this one, and that’s really saying something.

2 Weeks of Movies - Super 8

Super 8 - 6.5/10

(potential mild spoilers)

Another movie I went into without knowing anything about it, although I gather it was quite hyped up. Thankfully I missed that – I hate hyped up things, they rarely live up to it. So, without the hype, my judgement of this movie is ‘good.’ Not amazing, but by no means bad or even average. Not disappointing, as I had no expectations to begin with. I enjoyed it. But not quite as much as The Losers. So that’s why this is sitting at 6.5 instead of 7. Good, but not quite really good.

On the surface, Super 8 looks like a kind of ‘scarier E.T.’ A group of children are filming an amateur zombie movie at a railway station when a train crashes and something emerges from the wreckage. (The kids are filming on an old Super 8 camera which gives the film its name, but this is not a found-footage movie. As far as I’m concerned that’s a good thing, but there may be some folks out there who are disappointed, thinking this is ‘Cloverfield for Kids’.) The alien then proceeds to terrorise the small town, kidnapping people and taking bits of metal with it in order to rebuild its spaceship. Everyone is afraid of it, the army is hunting it, but the alien just wants to go home.

2 Weeks of Movies - Tron Legacy, or Daft Punk: The Movie

Tron Legacy - 8/10

(potential small spoilers!)

I’ll start by saying that I haven’t seen the original 1982 film Tron, so I wasn’t going into this with any nostalgia or protective feelings. I know that a lot of fans of the original were left cold by this new one. I can’t comment on whether the original was better, but I thought this one was very enjoyable.

The first and most overwhelming thing that needs mentioning about Tron is the music. Holy crap, the soundtrack for this film is awesome! In fact, the music alone pushes it up a whole star rating for me. And I don’t normally pay attention to movie music. When other people are raving about how amazing the score for a particular film was, I’m the one who can’t even remember it. Unless it’s actually a musical, I tend to think of film music as something that adds atmosphere but remains largely in the background.

But all the way through this film I couldn’t stop noticing how amazing the music was. Combined with the visuals, the experience was intense. Those visuals were stunning, really creating a sense of a unique, computerised world evolving on its own terms. I loved how important light was; it seemed to power the whole world while also providing beautiful shots and a constant ethereal glow that matched the mood of the world so well. The design of the sets and costumes, the beautiful architecture of the world, and the general feel of it all was amazing. The synthesised music felt 80s and modern at the same time, and very computery, with heart-pumping beats that suited the electric, cyber-punk atmosphere perfectly. At the same time, there was a mysterious, haunting and almost religious quality to both music and visuals, connecting to the idea of the users as ‘gods.’ Bizarrely, the music and visuals reminded me so much of the Mass Effect series, I have to wonder if someone in the process was influenced by the games? Or perhaps the games were influenced by the original Tron, if that had a similar look and sound? Either way, it just added a whole new level of awesome to the movie for me.

Unfortunately, the story didn’t come anywhere close to matching the style of the film. It was pretty bog standard for an actiony-sci-fi. Hero falls into strange new world, has to find a way out while escaping the evil bad guy who’s trying to stop him. Evil bad guy is also trying to take over the world, and to exterminate a whole new race for good measure. There’s the obligatory love interest, the search for a missing father, growing up and accepting responsibility, etc. It felt a little lazy to be honest. Not bad, by any means, but it could have been better.

Having said that, however, there were some nice touches. There are some amazing action sequences and fight scenes, particularly in the games at the beginning of the film. The acting was good. The aforementioned obligatory love interest was really likeable, and the romance was kept to an absolute minimum. I’m not saying romance is bad, but it can all too often be the ruin of an otherwise-good action movie that it has no real place in. The bad guy was also surprisingly sympathetic. There were some ironic moments of real humanity in him when he revealed his feelings of betrayal, and Jeff Bridges acted both roles so brilliantly. CLU is not just Flynn’s flawed creation, he is Flynn, and embodies all of his mistakes and naivety. Flynn knows this, but there is nothing he can do to help him. CLU sees Flynn as a father figure, a friend and a creator who turned on him for doing the very thing he was created to do. This is a more complex villain than most action or sci-fi movies attempt to create. There are also some interesting religious overtones that work all the better for not being forced down the viewer’s throat.

In most cases, an average story will bring an otherwise good movie down. In this case, I think all the other elements brought it up. The music and visuals alone jumped it up an extra point for me. Don’t go into it expecting something mind-bending; it’s a sci-fi driven by concept, visuals and atmosphere more than by a unique story. But that is actually not a criticism. It works. More than anything, it’s very entertaining.

2 Weeks of Movies - The Losers

The Losers - 7/10

Another of your A Team style special ops movies, less publicised than others and easy to miss. But missing it would be a shame. This was a fun movie! True, the premise, plot and characters are all a bit cliché now. True, you could tell exactly what was going to happen throughout most of the film. But that doesn't really matter when it's this enjoyable.

The action scenes were great, the story was satisfying, the characters were all good (with the possible exception of the obligatory mysterious woman, who got annoying at points), and the film was well paced. The latter is a problem for a lot of modern action films for some reason – everything seems to be based on the ‘first half is all exposition, second half is all action’ rule these days. This one, thankfully, avoided dying the boredom through too much or not enough action death. It also injected a lot of humour, particularly into action scenes, which really helped to lift it above its many competitors in the minefield of ‘special-ops-team-gone-rogue-because-of-corrupt-government’ movies. One scene in particular, involving ‘Don’t Stop Believing’ and some well-timed sniping, is genius.

I have never read the comics – in fact, I didn’t even know that it was based on a comic before seeing it – but watching it, I can see the influence. There is a slight risqué edge to it (killing a helicopter load of children in the first ten minutes for example), a sense of fun familiarity with the characters, a heart and soul to it that something like ‘The Expendables’ couldn’t seem to conjure up, and most importantly, a slightly tongue-in-cheek attitude of playing with the viewer. We all know we’re not taking this one too seriously.

I’ve heard people say this is ‘the poor man’s A Team.’ Personally, I thought it was miles better than ‘The A Team.’ This is what ‘The A Team’ should have been.