In the sidebar at the time of this writing, I'm listing under 'Last Watched' the 'film' Mega Shark vs Crocosaurus. I have, for the first time since starting this blog, put 'partial' after the title because I just couldn't get through it. I barely got through twenty minutes actually.
Yes. Yes.With that title I should've known there's no way the movie could be good. But I love giant monster movies, though mostly the ones I like fall under Japanese kaiju films or American and European B-movies (or Harryhausen films) from the 1950s. I can't really recall an American giant monster film I've ever enjoyed apart from the recent Cloverfield from J.J. Abrams.
But I was at least hoping for a 'so bad it's entertaining' experience. I didn't get that. Instead I lost twenty minutes of my life and untold brain cells feeding that dreck into my eyeballs. Totally drunk and with a bunch of friends wouldn't improve this. At least streaming on NetFlix lets you check something like this out without the commitment of a drive to a store or even the effort of putting it out in your mailbox.
Yike.
And get this: the outfit that made it, The Asylum, specializes in these direct to DVD releases... AND this film is the second Mega Shark masterpiece. That's right, if The Asylum were thinking what most studios do with sequels... making them bigger and better this atrocity actually ups the ante over the previous Mega Shark versus Giant Octopus.
These are like parodies of movies you'd find on billboards within other films or video games.
Showing posts with label SF. Show all posts
Showing posts with label SF. Show all posts
Monday, May 16, 2011
Thursday, April 28, 2011
Read The Book First
For all the visceral horror films I subject myself to, sometimes something quieter is in order, and often all the more disturbing. See The (original) Haunting or The Last Wave.
Months and months ago, I read Kazuo Ishiguro's dystopian fable Never Let Me Go. It was an incredibly good read. In the writing of this blog entry I'm going to be really vague, because the growing horror of the premise is a key part of the book. Ishiguro writes stories of longing and loss, sedate and melancholic. Never Let Me Go doesn't break with tradition. BUT. There are additional threads of mystery (at first) and then genuine horror (later) that I found gripping even long after I'd turned the last page.
A very English setting (and how the English love their messed-up-government-run-future-society stories) seen through a Japanese lens of melacholy pretty much sums up the aesthetic of the novel and British/Japanese Ishiguro himself.
The movie does a pretty good, though inferior, job of presenting the story. The settings look correct, the actors are all great, and the soundtrack, atmosphere and act cards all 'feel' like the book. But the film makes the INCREDIBLE misstep of revealing the mystery from the get-go. Having seen the film all the way through and digested it, I can understand why it was done this way... the first act is much shorter and less detailed in the film because the filmmakers want to spend more of the film's standard running time in the other acts. That was THEIR emphasis and I get it. I just think it was a huge mistake. And more than one reviewer agreed with me.
So, here's the deal. READ THE BOOK FIRST. Do not look up any summaries on the internet. Do not read any reviews of book or movie. Do not read the blurb on the back of the novel. Do not allow yourself the chance to have anything given away. The mystery is NOT the only aspect with teeth in the story, but it adds GREATLY to the atmosphere (and the book and movie are big on the atmosphere) if you go in ignorant. Here's all you need to know:
Alternate late-20th century history, so don't find seemingly glaring differences from our reality all that strange. English boarding school/drawing room type drama (like Ishiguro's Remains of the Day). Slow, melancholic pace, but atmosphere of foreboding and menace builds like a J-horror film. Coming of age story in some ways, though nominally science fiction.
If any of that sounds interesting at all do yourself a huge favor and read the novel first. I CAN recommend the movie... but the film loses little of its mystery if you've read the book because it is just going to tip its hand in the first quarter hour anyway.
Months and months ago, I read Kazuo Ishiguro's dystopian fable Never Let Me Go. It was an incredibly good read. In the writing of this blog entry I'm going to be really vague, because the growing horror of the premise is a key part of the book. Ishiguro writes stories of longing and loss, sedate and melancholic. Never Let Me Go doesn't break with tradition. BUT. There are additional threads of mystery (at first) and then genuine horror (later) that I found gripping even long after I'd turned the last page.
A very English setting (and how the English love their messed-up-government-run-future-society stories) seen through a Japanese lens of melacholy pretty much sums up the aesthetic of the novel and British/Japanese Ishiguro himself.
The movie does a pretty good, though inferior, job of presenting the story. The settings look correct, the actors are all great, and the soundtrack, atmosphere and act cards all 'feel' like the book. But the film makes the INCREDIBLE misstep of revealing the mystery from the get-go. Having seen the film all the way through and digested it, I can understand why it was done this way... the first act is much shorter and less detailed in the film because the filmmakers want to spend more of the film's standard running time in the other acts. That was THEIR emphasis and I get it. I just think it was a huge mistake. And more than one reviewer agreed with me.
So, here's the deal. READ THE BOOK FIRST. Do not look up any summaries on the internet. Do not read any reviews of book or movie. Do not read the blurb on the back of the novel. Do not allow yourself the chance to have anything given away. The mystery is NOT the only aspect with teeth in the story, but it adds GREATLY to the atmosphere (and the book and movie are big on the atmosphere) if you go in ignorant. Here's all you need to know:
Alternate late-20th century history, so don't find seemingly glaring differences from our reality all that strange. English boarding school/drawing room type drama (like Ishiguro's Remains of the Day). Slow, melancholic pace, but atmosphere of foreboding and menace builds like a J-horror film. Coming of age story in some ways, though nominally science fiction.
If any of that sounds interesting at all do yourself a huge favor and read the novel first. I CAN recommend the movie... but the film loses little of its mystery if you've read the book because it is just going to tip its hand in the first quarter hour anyway.
Nolan's Mind Games
I'm a real latecomer to the herd of people who've seen Christopher Nolan's epic mind-bender Inception. I thought it'd be beneficial to take in Memento right before that too, since for some reason THAT film eluded me on release as well.
Both of these films have been hyped to heaven by my friends and people online. While I think both films were fine compelling experiences, I don't think they deserve all the accolades, in particular Inception which I have on friendly authority is 'the best film ever made'.
Nolan's direction in both movies is fine. I think he strikes a great balance between confusing viewers and leading you to formulating your own conclusions, important particularly in Memento where the protagonist is just as unknowing as the viewer.
Also in Memento he twist ending isn't shocking because you come into it almost gradually (which Nolan intended) and many probably guessed most of what the climax contained before then. The mind-bending part is how the movie conveys memory and context and keeping you watching on two levels the whole time. I found some aspects rather unbelievable (the tatooing, that he'd have time to reacqauint with the notes every day, etc), but this is the kinda shit more considered in hindsight than jerking me out of the movie while I was watching it. I don't know enough about the real-life memory disorder to have been analysing it at the time. But here's the thing: this movie was hyped to death. If I'd just watched it on its own it'd have been an above average movie with a remarkable way of conveying chronology-- only Irreversible really comes to mind as similar. But everyone was 'oh you gotta see it, the ending is just unbelievable!' or 'you'll be blown away by the twists and turns'. Well, I wasn't. I guess maybe my imagination went the wrong way when I heard 'unbelievable ending' and 'twists' to where I was expecting a film as wrenching as Se7en.
Then Inception. Again with the hype only on a monumental scale culminating in eight Oscar nominations. With this movie, Nolan also does nothing really wrong, but it just doesn't go anywhere particularly affecting for me. Like Memento, you are challenged to keep track of what's what (this time perception as opposed to memory), and I think it is great that a film, especially a mega-budget one challenges the audience to do more than just sit there and take it in. But again, it's a thinker that after it is over didn't leave me pondering it. Not even the fabled spinning top at the end. Nolan says he's had so many people ask him about this, but for me, I saw it, noted the ambiguity, made my decision about what it meant right then and there, and moved on. I guess it wasn't ambiguous to me REALLY at all. In the case of Inception I think all the hype led me to believe it was 2010's The Matrix. For me, it wasn't. The Matrix had a 'twist' that was affecting (and thank heavens I saw it opening night). When Lawrence Fishburne finally holds that battery up to Keanu Reeves, that one scene was stronger to me than anything in the entirety of Inception. I think Inception is tighter and 'smarter' in a lot of ways than The Matrix is... but that wasn't enough. Not for all the 'best thing ever' shit I've been hearing about it. Like some reviewers I really wish the dream sequences had been a bit more 'out there'. I realise remembering dreams is tricky, but it is pretty well established that logic in dreams is different or non-existent. The dreams in Inception are incredibly consistent and well-ordered, however much common physical laws seem to bend at times. I think more 'insanity' was probably in order.
Neither film has anything really incompetent about it. Nolan's done good. These movies are just victims, to me, of the hype machine. But if I'd seen them when they first came out (and I think seeing Inception on the small screen for the first time really did it a disservice) I think I would've been dismayed by all the hype to come out subsequently.
Both of these films have been hyped to heaven by my friends and people online. While I think both films were fine compelling experiences, I don't think they deserve all the accolades, in particular Inception which I have on friendly authority is 'the best film ever made'.
Nolan's direction in both movies is fine. I think he strikes a great balance between confusing viewers and leading you to formulating your own conclusions, important particularly in Memento where the protagonist is just as unknowing as the viewer.
Also in Memento he twist ending isn't shocking because you come into it almost gradually (which Nolan intended) and many probably guessed most of what the climax contained before then. The mind-bending part is how the movie conveys memory and context and keeping you watching on two levels the whole time. I found some aspects rather unbelievable (the tatooing, that he'd have time to reacqauint with the notes every day, etc), but this is the kinda shit more considered in hindsight than jerking me out of the movie while I was watching it. I don't know enough about the real-life memory disorder to have been analysing it at the time. But here's the thing: this movie was hyped to death. If I'd just watched it on its own it'd have been an above average movie with a remarkable way of conveying chronology-- only Irreversible really comes to mind as similar. But everyone was 'oh you gotta see it, the ending is just unbelievable!' or 'you'll be blown away by the twists and turns'. Well, I wasn't. I guess maybe my imagination went the wrong way when I heard 'unbelievable ending' and 'twists' to where I was expecting a film as wrenching as Se7en.
Then Inception. Again with the hype only on a monumental scale culminating in eight Oscar nominations. With this movie, Nolan also does nothing really wrong, but it just doesn't go anywhere particularly affecting for me. Like Memento, you are challenged to keep track of what's what (this time perception as opposed to memory), and I think it is great that a film, especially a mega-budget one challenges the audience to do more than just sit there and take it in. But again, it's a thinker that after it is over didn't leave me pondering it. Not even the fabled spinning top at the end. Nolan says he's had so many people ask him about this, but for me, I saw it, noted the ambiguity, made my decision about what it meant right then and there, and moved on. I guess it wasn't ambiguous to me REALLY at all. In the case of Inception I think all the hype led me to believe it was 2010's The Matrix. For me, it wasn't. The Matrix had a 'twist' that was affecting (and thank heavens I saw it opening night). When Lawrence Fishburne finally holds that battery up to Keanu Reeves, that one scene was stronger to me than anything in the entirety of Inception. I think Inception is tighter and 'smarter' in a lot of ways than The Matrix is... but that wasn't enough. Not for all the 'best thing ever' shit I've been hearing about it. Like some reviewers I really wish the dream sequences had been a bit more 'out there'. I realise remembering dreams is tricky, but it is pretty well established that logic in dreams is different or non-existent. The dreams in Inception are incredibly consistent and well-ordered, however much common physical laws seem to bend at times. I think more 'insanity' was probably in order.
Neither film has anything really incompetent about it. Nolan's done good. These movies are just victims, to me, of the hype machine. But if I'd seen them when they first came out (and I think seeing Inception on the small screen for the first time really did it a disservice) I think I would've been dismayed by all the hype to come out subsequently.
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
The Left Hand Feels Different
I have recently read Ursula K. LeGuin’s novel The Left Hand of Darkness. Kind of a spooky title considering the actual subject matter in the book. The story is about a (normal) human’s adventures as an ambassador to a planet peopled by beings who are part of the human family (a genetically engineered subbranch), but are all of neutral/changeable gender. The ‘left hand’ of the title is part of a quote in the literature of the planet’s take on the philosophy of dualism similar to our concept of yin/yang.
While this book was written in 1969 it manages to still be largely relevant (I think) to the 21st century reader, in theme and subject as well as avoiding anachronism. LeGuin isn’t really concerned with technology or, given the subject matter, really technical aspects of genetic engineering. She lays down the hard science and hard science fiction bits down with somewhat broad strokes so there’s not a lot of fuel for nitpicking, and the ‘science’ isn’t the point of the story anyway. Where she packs in details is the world building aspect, especially the society and history of the Gethenian (planet Gethen or Winter) peoples. She has a pretty clever seamless knack for alternating between present narrative, and relevant myth and history chapters.
LeGuin is known for a feminist slant to her stories and a distaste for violence. Both of these traits are on display in LHOD but they aren’t particularly heavy handed or preachy. In fact, the feminism aspects might be surprisingly level and almost understated for readers whose concept of the term is more strident or who are able to place the story in its real-world historical context. LeGuin speculates on both male and female aspects contributing to social constructs, positing the usual ‘men equal aggression’ trope (Gethenians lacking male identities most of their lives have no war), but also finding that the Gethenians are rather lifeless and stagnant without this male dynamic. Gethenians are shown to be a socially concerned, nurturing society… stereotypically feminine traits, but it was never clear to me why a neutral-gender population would default to this feminine standard… probably the only glaring question I really had reading the book. Probably LeGuin didn’t intend it to come off as feminine specifically—more as ‘neutral’ and that if the Gethenians had instead been feminine-dominant there’d have been some other societal imbalance indicated. Obviously I have to view this as a male reader seeing this with a mindset forty years after it was written!
Her handling of violence was also done well. The (main) protagonist comes from an ‘enlightened’ galactic confederation, and in time-honored SF tradition that means violence-disinclined, more Picard than Kirk as it were. But the ambassador is also cognizant of more primitive society’s need to grow up and through their violent tendencies. Gethen, lacking male aggressiveness and hindered in warfare possibilities by the bitter, lethal nature of their planet’s climate, keep their own violence frequent but relatively low-level… on the nature of raids into rival territory or as aspects of politics, assassinations and the like. LeGuin manages to somehow make violence (and punishment in general) futile and distasteful, without avoiding or ignoring it unrealistically or going with the ‘but sometimes it is necessary’ that most peace-espousing good guys seem to need to fall back on in American-fictive conflict resolution/rationalization.
(This actually brings up an interesting reminder to me about Lukyanenko’s Night Watch novels that I’m also reading. It is a horror adventure series set in Russia written by a Russian author, and half of what makes it so interesting is the completely different moral stance from which it is written. No attempt has been made by the translators to Americanize the books, which is all the better. But Wow! Russians sure don’t think like we do. Not that I expected them to, but it is still quite a nail in the forehead some of the conclusions the Russian heroes come to, or the decisions they make. As a white Euro-descended male, the typical Russian doesn’t look that far off from myself or most people I see every day, but it is easy to forget the EASTERN European/Asian history and context that is SO different from our anglo/gallic/latin bedrock. Lukyanenko is considered quite popular as a street-wise, every-man author too… so I’m going to assume his views are NOT atypical of modern Russians. I could be wrong about that, of course.)
I think one of the greatest things about this book is that it is one of the many examples that packs a lot of story in a spare space. I think this shit is a lost art. Authors like Michael Moorcock, Fritz Leiber, and LeGuin here could world-build complete with myth and history in a fraction of the page count of more modern authors. And I don’t feel like I’m lacking anything after I finish one of their books either. I’m not saying I don’t want to know more about the worlds, or that thick books are all beneath consideration. I just find the ‘old ways’ admirable. Spare plotting, picking up the details along the way, minimal exposition… all demanded by the minimal page counts demanded by paperback marketing of the day. LeGuin has some pretty big books out there now, as does Moorcock, whose ‘plot is everything’ philosophy really scores points with me. But those fat-ass novels still really move. Its not really about putting your characters through a breakneck pace series of events. Hell, Tanith Lee is the queen of purple prose and she still got the work done in sliver-sized paperbacks. It more about focused, concise writing that doesn’t wallow in indulgent bullshit. If someone was just learning the basics of writing and their chosen genre was SF, fantasy, or horror (hell, any genre maybe) I think they’d do better looking to this style than to the Tolkiens or Eddings. Not only will these old authors show how to get to the nuts and bolts of the craft, but if one is breaking in by contributing shorter work to fanzines or webzines one needs to know how to get the job done with space to spare.
LeGuin won just about every SF award you can get for this work, and it holds up. In a time where we like to bloat just about everything we touch; books, movies, serving sizes for food, it was quite a refreshing turn. Too bad you have to reach back so far for this kind of workmanship, but good there are so many examples to be had.
While this book was written in 1969 it manages to still be largely relevant (I think) to the 21st century reader, in theme and subject as well as avoiding anachronism. LeGuin isn’t really concerned with technology or, given the subject matter, really technical aspects of genetic engineering. She lays down the hard science and hard science fiction bits down with somewhat broad strokes so there’s not a lot of fuel for nitpicking, and the ‘science’ isn’t the point of the story anyway. Where she packs in details is the world building aspect, especially the society and history of the Gethenian (planet Gethen or Winter) peoples. She has a pretty clever seamless knack for alternating between present narrative, and relevant myth and history chapters.
LeGuin is known for a feminist slant to her stories and a distaste for violence. Both of these traits are on display in LHOD but they aren’t particularly heavy handed or preachy. In fact, the feminism aspects might be surprisingly level and almost understated for readers whose concept of the term is more strident or who are able to place the story in its real-world historical context. LeGuin speculates on both male and female aspects contributing to social constructs, positing the usual ‘men equal aggression’ trope (Gethenians lacking male identities most of their lives have no war), but also finding that the Gethenians are rather lifeless and stagnant without this male dynamic. Gethenians are shown to be a socially concerned, nurturing society… stereotypically feminine traits, but it was never clear to me why a neutral-gender population would default to this feminine standard… probably the only glaring question I really had reading the book. Probably LeGuin didn’t intend it to come off as feminine specifically—more as ‘neutral’ and that if the Gethenians had instead been feminine-dominant there’d have been some other societal imbalance indicated. Obviously I have to view this as a male reader seeing this with a mindset forty years after it was written!
Her handling of violence was also done well. The (main) protagonist comes from an ‘enlightened’ galactic confederation, and in time-honored SF tradition that means violence-disinclined, more Picard than Kirk as it were. But the ambassador is also cognizant of more primitive society’s need to grow up and through their violent tendencies. Gethen, lacking male aggressiveness and hindered in warfare possibilities by the bitter, lethal nature of their planet’s climate, keep their own violence frequent but relatively low-level… on the nature of raids into rival territory or as aspects of politics, assassinations and the like. LeGuin manages to somehow make violence (and punishment in general) futile and distasteful, without avoiding or ignoring it unrealistically or going with the ‘but sometimes it is necessary’ that most peace-espousing good guys seem to need to fall back on in American-fictive conflict resolution/rationalization.
(This actually brings up an interesting reminder to me about Lukyanenko’s Night Watch novels that I’m also reading. It is a horror adventure series set in Russia written by a Russian author, and half of what makes it so interesting is the completely different moral stance from which it is written. No attempt has been made by the translators to Americanize the books, which is all the better. But Wow! Russians sure don’t think like we do. Not that I expected them to, but it is still quite a nail in the forehead some of the conclusions the Russian heroes come to, or the decisions they make. As a white Euro-descended male, the typical Russian doesn’t look that far off from myself or most people I see every day, but it is easy to forget the EASTERN European/Asian history and context that is SO different from our anglo/gallic/latin bedrock. Lukyanenko is considered quite popular as a street-wise, every-man author too… so I’m going to assume his views are NOT atypical of modern Russians. I could be wrong about that, of course.)
I think one of the greatest things about this book is that it is one of the many examples that packs a lot of story in a spare space. I think this shit is a lost art. Authors like Michael Moorcock, Fritz Leiber, and LeGuin here could world-build complete with myth and history in a fraction of the page count of more modern authors. And I don’t feel like I’m lacking anything after I finish one of their books either. I’m not saying I don’t want to know more about the worlds, or that thick books are all beneath consideration. I just find the ‘old ways’ admirable. Spare plotting, picking up the details along the way, minimal exposition… all demanded by the minimal page counts demanded by paperback marketing of the day. LeGuin has some pretty big books out there now, as does Moorcock, whose ‘plot is everything’ philosophy really scores points with me. But those fat-ass novels still really move. Its not really about putting your characters through a breakneck pace series of events. Hell, Tanith Lee is the queen of purple prose and she still got the work done in sliver-sized paperbacks. It more about focused, concise writing that doesn’t wallow in indulgent bullshit. If someone was just learning the basics of writing and their chosen genre was SF, fantasy, or horror (hell, any genre maybe) I think they’d do better looking to this style than to the Tolkiens or Eddings. Not only will these old authors show how to get to the nuts and bolts of the craft, but if one is breaking in by contributing shorter work to fanzines or webzines one needs to know how to get the job done with space to spare.
LeGuin won just about every SF award you can get for this work, and it holds up. In a time where we like to bloat just about everything we touch; books, movies, serving sizes for food, it was quite a refreshing turn. Too bad you have to reach back so far for this kind of workmanship, but good there are so many examples to be had.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)