Ante's Inferno - Book Review

Ante’s Inferno, by Griselda Heppel, tells the story of 12-year-old girls Ante and Florence, as they journey through the Underworld with a boy called Gil who died a hundred years earlier. Following a path that leads to the centre of Hell, they face strange dangers and mythical monsters, while at the same time learning more about each other. For Ante, worse than the dangers of the Underworld are the fears that Florence may actually be dead, and that she, Ante, may have killed her.

Poison - Book Review

Poison, by Chris Wooding, is the story of a sixteen year old girl called Poison whose sister is stolen by phaeries. Poison, unwilling to accept her sister’s disappearance or the changeling left in her place, sets out to find the Phaerie Lord and demand her sister’s return. Poison soon finds herself pitted against weird and terrifying fairytale creatures. When she faces the mysterious figure of the Hierophant, the most powerful of the Lords, she finds herself in a fight to control her own fate, as well as the future of all humanity.

Edge Lit - Convention Report

Edge Lit is a new convention for writers and fans of SF&F and horror, held in Derby (UK) and run by Alex Davis. This year’s Edge Lit took place yesterday, on Saturday 14th July at The QUAD, Derby.

With all kinds of authors and publishing professionals present, eleven different panels and talks, seven workshops, and fourteen author readings, Edge Lit was a packed and exciting day. Unfortunately, one of the guests of honour, Geoff Ryman, couldn’t make it, but Graham Joyce stepped in and gave a very interesting Question and Answer session.

The Sewer Demon - Book Review

Euge! I won a signed copy of The Sewer Demon by Caroline Lawrence in a Twitter competition from the Big Book Babble! This sent me into slightly unreasonable levels of excitement. Partly because I’ve never won anything in a prize draw before, but mainly because The RomanMysteries series has been a favourite of mine for a long time.

But, aren’t they children’s books? Yes, of course they are, but like Disney cartoons, they’re absolutely delightful for grownups too. I would class them as ‘family books.’ They’re funny, clever, exciting, and historically accurate. I think they are some of the best stories set in the Ancient World in either adult or children’s fiction. Besides, I’m fairly sure I never actually grew up...

I was introduced to the Roman Mysteries books by my cousin’s daughter, who a) was in love with the series, and b) was amazed and overjoyed that she had written to the author, Caroline Lawrence, and Caroline had actually written back! Not all authors will do this, mainly because they are so busy, but I remember having a similar experience when I was younger and it really does make such a difference to a child. Anyway, I was studying Classics at university at the time, so “it’s about Romans” was (and still is, if I’m honest) enough on its own to get me excited. A combination of ‘Romans’ and ‘friendly author’ meant they were a must-read. I borrowed one from the library, reading horribly out of order (The Sirens of Surrentum), and on the strength of that one book alone I bought a set of all the books written to that point, with the beautiful second generation covers. Every single one was good, and I’ve been collecting them ever since.

The Sewer Demon is a companion book to The Roman Mysteries series, moving away from the Roman Mystery children to focus on a new main character, a boy called Threptus. Readers of The Roman Mysteries books might remember Threptus, who popped up in The Man from Pomegranate Street, and in ‘Threptus and the Sacred Chickens’ in The Legionary from Londinium and other Mini Mysteries. Threptus is an eight year old boy living in Ostia, once a beggar, but now working for Floridius, who is a prophet, soothsayer, amulet-seller and dealer in sacred chickens! This is the first in a new series called The Roman Mystery Scrolls, which seems to be aimed at slightly younger readers, with shorter books and ruder humour.

The same easy-going and humorous style of The Roman Mysteries series is found in this book, with plenty of jokes that both young readers and their parents can enjoy. The curses (Pollux!) and exclamations like ‘Great Juno’s Beard’ always make me laugh out loud. Because the story is set in Ostia, familiar faces and places appear. At one point Threptus is forced to crawl through the town’s sewers, and learns why the local magistrate Bato should never eat cumin-dusted eggs. The mystery is intriguing and solving it is fun, with the usual variety of fascinating Roman facts and titbits incorporated into the story. I’ve never noticed anything un-historically accurate in a Roman Mysteries book, and the same goes here (makes sense – the author really knows the Ancient World).

Caroline Lawrence has a wonderful ability to conjure up places and people so well in so few words, and her characters are always so alive they jump off the page. (The little illustrations that accompany each chapter pick up on this brilliantly. Here’s my favourite.) The pacing is spot on, there are no boring bits, and no scene is wasted or ‘filler.’ It’s a very easy read. This would make it a perfect book for younger readers or less confident readers, before diving into the more complex mysteries and plotting of the Roman Mysteries stories. It’s also a great companion book for readers who are already fans of the Roman Mystery world.

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 - 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.