A few years ago, I would have told you that Sin City is one of my top 10 favourite films. I'm not sure if it's still that high - I've seen some great films since then and not revisited a top 10 list in a whle, but I still thoroughly enjoy it. So when I saw that the sequel was out I waws eager to go and see it.
The original was striking, new and exciting in the way that it was shot. The black and white, with the very occasional colour. It looked stunning. There were some great quotes, "look at you Hartigan, you can't even lift that cannon you carry" is one that sticks in my mind, and while there was a lot of comic book style violence, it was never excessive, and the story always gave a reason for it.
In the sequel the art direction is stil the same, but more so. I'm wondering if it was a bit much in some cases. Less of the comic book and more of the real world would have been nice. Some of the progresion in it was great, new touches especially with the water physics. However, the amount of block colour was a bit much and detracted from it. It was done better in the original.
The violence in it is something else that was a bit excessive. Not in the amount, or the style. It was the lack of reason that got me. In the original, Hartigan went after that yellow bastard to protect Nancy, Marv for veneance of Goldie (who had a really nice cameo) and Dwighht to protect his girlfriend who's name escapes me. In this it seems to be done for kiciks a lot more than for anything. Only Nancy really is after revenge, and she uses Marv who jjust seems to like violence in this. Dwight's story is a bit more than just for the hell of it, but not by too much, and gave good background to the original.
I did like how it jumped around in time before and after the original. Adding depth to the character roster, explaining people's back stories. It kept you paying attention, aan made it feel a lot more rewarding for fans of the original as opposed to a casual viewer.
Out of the new charaters I really liked Joseph Gordon Levitts part, and I thought it suited him well. It was cool and suave, withh the dose of violence that is whatSin City should be all about. He also had reason other than "that girl's pretty".
The one thing that really let it down is the lack of quotability. This may be different after repeat viewings, but for the first time nothing sticks in the mind. Films like this I want to be quoting it for days after, if not weeks.
This may sound like I'm hating on it, which I really am not. I thought it was a thoroughly enjoyable film, and willl very probably buy it when it comes out. But it's just not the same as the original, which still sits high on my favourite list.
Friday, 5 September 2014
Wednesday, 1 January 2014
Desolation of the Hobbit
I wrote something similar to this about a year ago. Like that case, there are likely to be spoilers here. But as Martin Freeman put it when he got accused of that, the book is 75 years old. So if I spoil anything, then you should have gone and read the book. Trust me it is worth it.
The book of the hobbit is fantastic. It would make a great film if done properly. Note the use of the singular there, not the plural. It would start off slowly, have excitement half way through for the trip though the mountains, a tense situation going through forest, then a grandstand finish with teh battle of the 5 armies. More action comes throughout, with the wargs the spiders, and of course, smaug attacking esgaroth. Yeah that would be pretty long, but as it stands there are three 3 hour long films. And they've changed the plot, added extra action. And that makes for eexciting films.
Only it isn't necessary. And it has changed the focus of the story. And that is why I am so angered by the changes I think. The book was always about Bilbo growing into something of a leader. And it celebrated something wonderful. It celebrated him being clever and thinking his way out. And that has been lost in the movies, in favour of extra action, telling everyone that it is through the heroism of Thorin Fli and Kili that everything was won. They do this for the good of films, not for the good of the story.
Intelligence isn't something that should be taken so lightly in this day and age. Look at a previous entry in thi blog to find out what I think about intelligence in general, it is fantastic and underrated. If we now go and glorify action in its place to the neext generation, we are letting them down, and it won't help us in the long run. That is a massive shame, and we should be looking at ourselves for letting it happen, and how we can readdress the balance of this. In short, long live JRR's original message. Long live Intelligence.
The book of the hobbit is fantastic. It would make a great film if done properly. Note the use of the singular there, not the plural. It would start off slowly, have excitement half way through for the trip though the mountains, a tense situation going through forest, then a grandstand finish with teh battle of the 5 armies. More action comes throughout, with the wargs the spiders, and of course, smaug attacking esgaroth. Yeah that would be pretty long, but as it stands there are three 3 hour long films. And they've changed the plot, added extra action. And that makes for eexciting films.
Only it isn't necessary. And it has changed the focus of the story. And that is why I am so angered by the changes I think. The book was always about Bilbo growing into something of a leader. And it celebrated something wonderful. It celebrated him being clever and thinking his way out. And that has been lost in the movies, in favour of extra action, telling everyone that it is through the heroism of Thorin Fli and Kili that everything was won. They do this for the good of films, not for the good of the story.
Intelligence isn't something that should be taken so lightly in this day and age. Look at a previous entry in thi blog to find out what I think about intelligence in general, it is fantastic and underrated. If we now go and glorify action in its place to the neext generation, we are letting them down, and it won't help us in the long run. That is a massive shame, and we should be looking at ourselves for letting it happen, and how we can readdress the balance of this. In short, long live JRR's original message. Long live Intelligence.
Tuesday, 10 December 2013
Bad Wolf will #savetheday
To begin this, a confession. I am a whovian. Since the restart of Doctor Who, I have seen all the episodes, all the specials. I quote it in normal conversation whenever I get the chance. I search for it on pinterest and tumblr. I even went to see the 50th anniversary prom in the royal albert hall.
So surprisingly enough, I was excited for the 50th anniversary special. Who saw that coming? I didn't go to see it in the cinema due to other plans, but I was excited. The return of David Tennant and Billie Piper sent the fan boy in me racing. The concept of the war doctor appearing and the story of the time war was great. Paul McGann reprising his role for the short of teh nigiht of the doctor got me even more pumped. 4 Doctors already?
But how were they going to use 10 and Billie? Their storyline was complete, with the human doctor trapped in the parallel world with her. How could they add to that?
In the end they didn't and I was very glad they didn't. They came up with a new fun way to include Billie. The concept of the "moment" having its own intelligence was brilliant, and that being in the form of what would matter most to the user was great. But what was really interesting was that the most important person in all of the doctor's life was the Bad Wolf.
The most important person in all of his lives? We know that the doctor has been married and had children. We know that he marries River at some point in his future (different to the mother of his child). We know he loved Rose, Clara is the impossiblel girl who saves him throughout his life, and has seen his grave, Donna was his best friend when he needed one, Sarah Jane he sees in multiple regenerations and all the other companions have touched him in more ways than we ever saw. And this isn't even begining to think about the TARDIS when she took human (?) form.
But the Bad Wolf was the most important person throughout his history. She who only existed for that brief time just as he regenerated from 9 to 10. Who made it that Jack couldn't die, turning him into an impossible thing. Who defeated all the Daleks, the first he had seen since the time war. Since he thought he had ended it, killing his own race as well as all of his enemies. And I think this is why Bad Wolf, not Rose or anyone else was the most important person in all his lives. She was there, at the time he saw the return of the aleks and saved him. She gave him hope that there are better things out there, and that if theh Dalkes didn't all die during the time war, maybe not all the time lords did too. Maybe, just maybe, he could once again set foot on Gallifrey. Hope came to him that he may be able to go home.
That this is how the episode ended too makes me think this may be the case. He's going where he has always been going, where everyone always goes. He's just taking a longner route than them. But he still is ging home. Because of the Bad Wolf.
So surprisingly enough, I was excited for the 50th anniversary special. Who saw that coming? I didn't go to see it in the cinema due to other plans, but I was excited. The return of David Tennant and Billie Piper sent the fan boy in me racing. The concept of the war doctor appearing and the story of the time war was great. Paul McGann reprising his role for the short of teh nigiht of the doctor got me even more pumped. 4 Doctors already?
But how were they going to use 10 and Billie? Their storyline was complete, with the human doctor trapped in the parallel world with her. How could they add to that?
In the end they didn't and I was very glad they didn't. They came up with a new fun way to include Billie. The concept of the "moment" having its own intelligence was brilliant, and that being in the form of what would matter most to the user was great. But what was really interesting was that the most important person in all of the doctor's life was the Bad Wolf.
The most important person in all of his lives? We know that the doctor has been married and had children. We know that he marries River at some point in his future (different to the mother of his child). We know he loved Rose, Clara is the impossiblel girl who saves him throughout his life, and has seen his grave, Donna was his best friend when he needed one, Sarah Jane he sees in multiple regenerations and all the other companions have touched him in more ways than we ever saw. And this isn't even begining to think about the TARDIS when she took human (?) form.
But the Bad Wolf was the most important person throughout his history. She who only existed for that brief time just as he regenerated from 9 to 10. Who made it that Jack couldn't die, turning him into an impossible thing. Who defeated all the Daleks, the first he had seen since the time war. Since he thought he had ended it, killing his own race as well as all of his enemies. And I think this is why Bad Wolf, not Rose or anyone else was the most important person in all his lives. She was there, at the time he saw the return of the aleks and saved him. She gave him hope that there are better things out there, and that if theh Dalkes didn't all die during the time war, maybe not all the time lords did too. Maybe, just maybe, he could once again set foot on Gallifrey. Hope came to him that he may be able to go home.
That this is how the episode ended too makes me think this may be the case. He's going where he has always been going, where everyone always goes. He's just taking a longner route than them. But he still is ging home. Because of the Bad Wolf.
Wednesday, 4 December 2013
Becoming the Trainer
Last winter in the build up to Reading half marathon, I spent numerous weeks helping one of my friend train for it. I didn't mind hte idea of it, I waas training myself and by doing that I got to do longer runs, and at a forced slower pace than normal, which was good for me. And this year I get to do the same, with a different friend for a different race.
When I tarted doing it last year, I had only been running for about 9 months. Maybe less. I started after the Reading half the year before. I'd been out, watched, cheered and then it got me thinking, why not. I had always been one of the more active fitter people out of my various groups of friends, but after moving here I was suddenly not. Everyone it seemed was going to the gym, or doing something and I was feeling a bit unhealthy. I think more than anything it was the shame of that which drove me to pick up a pair of trainers and head out the door. I started with the simple of goal of doing the half marathon the year after. I had 3 times in mind, one that i would be disappointed if I took longer than, one that I wanted to do and one that I would be thrilled if I managed. They were quite spread out, andwent from very challenging to something I should have been able to do from day one.
When the autumn rolled round I entered a couple of races to see how I was coping. Henley and Gosport came and went and I suddenly had to changee my goals. I'd done Henley in 97minutes, when my top target was 90. Suddenly that wasn't quite so out of the question, but it was still going to proof difficult.
It was with the confidence from this that I started helping my friend train. She had one main goal which was to complete the cursed thing. As time goals went, she would have loved to been able to do it 2hrs 6 - steady at 6 minutes per km. It doesnt sound much, but trying to keep going at a solid pace which is as fast as you can for voer 2 hours? It is not an easy thing to do, even if you think that pace is slow. It is something that is personal, not one sizee fits all. So my goal in this was to try and seee to it that they could run the whole thing, not get scared by the distancee, and hopefully be able to run at a constant pace.
Starting from about half distance we went for weekly runs, gradually growing in distance up to just a couple of kms short of the full distance. We rarely went at the full pace, because the thought wass that the race efffect, having a rowd cheering and the adrenaline going, and people to try o catch would help spur on. This is something I had found hugely helpful in Henley; I think it saved me about 8 minutes.
The race came and went, and she finished, frustratingly a little bi outside of her target time. I'd managed to shave another 5 minutes off my own time, aganisingly close to my initial ridiculous goa, but it wasn't to e in the end. There's always the next one anyway.
Bu I was hugely proud of her. I spent months helping (or so I like to think) and to see someone achieve something they didn'tt think because of that is hugely rewarding. May even have been more so for me than for her, but I doubt that. I can't explain the feeling, it was just fantastic.
And now i get to do it all over again! I get to see someone go from the fear of half the distance, to hopefully completing it, and maybe even getting the time that they want. When it is something that doesn't come quite naturally to people, being able to help them achieve it is such a great feeling.
I just hope that i am actually helping!
When I tarted doing it last year, I had only been running for about 9 months. Maybe less. I started after the Reading half the year before. I'd been out, watched, cheered and then it got me thinking, why not. I had always been one of the more active fitter people out of my various groups of friends, but after moving here I was suddenly not. Everyone it seemed was going to the gym, or doing something and I was feeling a bit unhealthy. I think more than anything it was the shame of that which drove me to pick up a pair of trainers and head out the door. I started with the simple of goal of doing the half marathon the year after. I had 3 times in mind, one that i would be disappointed if I took longer than, one that I wanted to do and one that I would be thrilled if I managed. They were quite spread out, andwent from very challenging to something I should have been able to do from day one.
When the autumn rolled round I entered a couple of races to see how I was coping. Henley and Gosport came and went and I suddenly had to changee my goals. I'd done Henley in 97minutes, when my top target was 90. Suddenly that wasn't quite so out of the question, but it was still going to proof difficult.
It was with the confidence from this that I started helping my friend train. She had one main goal which was to complete the cursed thing. As time goals went, she would have loved to been able to do it 2hrs 6 - steady at 6 minutes per km. It doesnt sound much, but trying to keep going at a solid pace which is as fast as you can for voer 2 hours? It is not an easy thing to do, even if you think that pace is slow. It is something that is personal, not one sizee fits all. So my goal in this was to try and seee to it that they could run the whole thing, not get scared by the distancee, and hopefully be able to run at a constant pace.
Starting from about half distance we went for weekly runs, gradually growing in distance up to just a couple of kms short of the full distance. We rarely went at the full pace, because the thought wass that the race efffect, having a rowd cheering and the adrenaline going, and people to try o catch would help spur on. This is something I had found hugely helpful in Henley; I think it saved me about 8 minutes.
The race came and went, and she finished, frustratingly a little bi outside of her target time. I'd managed to shave another 5 minutes off my own time, aganisingly close to my initial ridiculous goa, but it wasn't to e in the end. There's always the next one anyway.
Bu I was hugely proud of her. I spent months helping (or so I like to think) and to see someone achieve something they didn'tt think because of that is hugely rewarding. May even have been more so for me than for her, but I doubt that. I can't explain the feeling, it was just fantastic.
And now i get to do it all over again! I get to see someone go from the fear of half the distance, to hopefully completing it, and maybe even getting the time that they want. When it is something that doesn't come quite naturally to people, being able to help them achieve it is such a great feeling.
I just hope that i am actually helping!
Saturday, 16 November 2013
Gravity and the weight of expectation
On Monday I went to the cinema for the second time this year (the last thing I saw was the first part of the hobbit, complete disappointment, but that's a different blog and alpha papa, a fun romp but nothing special). We saw gravity after hearing a huge amount of hype for it over the previous month, ever since it was released in America. But how did it live up to it?
I had tried to avoid too much of the build up. I didn't hear any spoilers, just that I should go see it. I kind of knew it was a disaster movie, but that was about it.
Let's start with the things that were brilliant about it. Visually it was phenomenal. This is over film that it really is worth going to see on a big screen and in 3D. The only other 3D film I've seen was Alice in wonderland and this used it significantly better. It used it very well and the zero gravity effects were done very well. The other part that really stood out to me was the soundtrack. This is anaaspext that I rarely praise, but here it is well deserved.The use of silence is very powerful and very applicable. Sound doesn't travel in space. And the chances are the engines would be off so they wouldn't make any noise even if it could be heard. Attention to detail like this was very good throughout.
Next we come to the things that were not so good. I feel bad slamming this film because ultimately I did enjoy it and found myself invested in the characters and storyline. Howeverthe plot itself wasn't great. Once you accepted that it was a disaster movie that was all that you needed to know. Someone stranded in space then had to find a way back to earth. There's not much more that could happen. My other main criticism is that George Clooney only seems to play one character. It seemed that it worked here but it could have been a lot more. Sandra bullock was good enough, but I think talk of an Oscar is a bit premature when you think of performances that have gone unrewarded. I'm looking at you Di caprio.
I thoroughly enjoyed the film and an glad that I went to see it. Watching it in cinema is likely to be a huge improvement on watching it at home on the TV. But I don't think I'll buy the dvd when it comes out. It didn't fully live up to the hype. The plot just wasn't as good as the visual. Otherwise it would be as out of the world as it's setting.
I had tried to avoid too much of the build up. I didn't hear any spoilers, just that I should go see it. I kind of knew it was a disaster movie, but that was about it.
Let's start with the things that were brilliant about it. Visually it was phenomenal. This is over film that it really is worth going to see on a big screen and in 3D. The only other 3D film I've seen was Alice in wonderland and this used it significantly better. It used it very well and the zero gravity effects were done very well. The other part that really stood out to me was the soundtrack. This is anaaspext that I rarely praise, but here it is well deserved.The use of silence is very powerful and very applicable. Sound doesn't travel in space. And the chances are the engines would be off so they wouldn't make any noise even if it could be heard. Attention to detail like this was very good throughout.
Next we come to the things that were not so good. I feel bad slamming this film because ultimately I did enjoy it and found myself invested in the characters and storyline. Howeverthe plot itself wasn't great. Once you accepted that it was a disaster movie that was all that you needed to know. Someone stranded in space then had to find a way back to earth. There's not much more that could happen. My other main criticism is that George Clooney only seems to play one character. It seemed that it worked here but it could have been a lot more. Sandra bullock was good enough, but I think talk of an Oscar is a bit premature when you think of performances that have gone unrewarded. I'm looking at you Di caprio.
I thoroughly enjoyed the film and an glad that I went to see it. Watching it in cinema is likely to be a huge improvement on watching it at home on the TV. But I don't think I'll buy the dvd when it comes out. It didn't fully live up to the hype. The plot just wasn't as good as the visual. Otherwise it would be as out of the world as it's setting.
Sunday, 3 November 2013
the wrong side of the law
So I started watching the wire today. Firstly, three episodes in it is fantastic. It looks like it is going to be an amazing series and all the good things I've heard about it are well deserved. but the concept of it got me thinking.
I don't think this classes as a spoiler but the wire is about the drugs scene in Baltimore as seen from both sides of the law. I've just finished sopranos (also a very, very good show) which is about the Mafia in new H Jersey. Similarly, breaking bad has just finished to huge acclaim and that was, to the best of my understanding, about crystal meth. I've not seen it yet, but it is very high on my list of things to watch.
Like i said the combination of these three for me thinking. What is it about illegal activities that we find so intriguing as a viewing public. Whyare we so fascinated with the law and breaking it?
Honestly, I'm not sure what the answer to this is. I guess it's because it'sthe unknown and the forbidden. People like things that are bad for Erm. We see it in what we do what we eat and many aspects of our lives. It's why there are things that are universally accepted as guilty pleasures. And why we don't care about them.
It's not just in TV. Look at the top films and you will always find things that are outside the law. Mafia. Drugs. Murder. The godfather. Trainspotting, pulp fiction. Great films about things that most people are completely distant for. I'm guessing it's escapism of some form, but people are always after some way to look at a different life from their own.
This happens to me as much as anyone i'm sure. I find them really absorbing and always want to watch more. But does it bother me? Hell no!
I don't think this classes as a spoiler but the wire is about the drugs scene in Baltimore as seen from both sides of the law. I've just finished sopranos (also a very, very good show) which is about the Mafia in new H Jersey. Similarly, breaking bad has just finished to huge acclaim and that was, to the best of my understanding, about crystal meth. I've not seen it yet, but it is very high on my list of things to watch.
Like i said the combination of these three for me thinking. What is it about illegal activities that we find so intriguing as a viewing public. Whyare we so fascinated with the law and breaking it?
Honestly, I'm not sure what the answer to this is. I guess it's because it'sthe unknown and the forbidden. People like things that are bad for Erm. We see it in what we do what we eat and many aspects of our lives. It's why there are things that are universally accepted as guilty pleasures. And why we don't care about them.
It's not just in TV. Look at the top films and you will always find things that are outside the law. Mafia. Drugs. Murder. The godfather. Trainspotting, pulp fiction. Great films about things that most people are completely distant for. I'm guessing it's escapism of some form, but people are always after some way to look at a different life from their own.
This happens to me as much as anyone i'm sure. I find them really absorbing and always want to watch more. But does it bother me? Hell no!
Thursday, 15 August 2013
Les Miserables
Last night I am very glad to say that I went to see Les Miserables at the Queen's Theatre on Shaftesbury Avenue. Before this I hadn't seen any stage or film production of it, but I had read the book. As with every adaptation of a book there are bound to be differences; characters changed, scenes missing and the like. I mean how do you turn a book that's almost a thousand pages long into a show that's short enough to expect people to sit through?
Now obviously, as with all reviews, this is hugely subjective. But I thought they did a terrific job. The amount they had to cut out didn't detract from the story, it just gave more information on the background of a few people, most notably the link between Marius and Thernardier. This is just added depth to the brilliant work of Victor Hugo, but is far from essential.
Again, with two different versions you will always get different interpretations of characters. This is exaggerated in my view for Eponine. When I read the book I saw her as a little bit hopeless, hardly saying anything, but the musical had her as a much stronger person. Its also hard to be so quiet in a musical! I like her a lot more in this version, and she had one of my favourite songs in On My Own. Marius I found to be a smaller character in the stage show, although I did still really like him. I just would've liked to see more of him at the barricade as that was my favourite scene of his in the book.
I'm also ashamed to say that I found Gavroche to be just a bit too annoying in the show. I know he's an arrogant little kid so I should be annoyed by him, but it was worse than I thought. On the contrary I much preferred Jaevert in the show. Which is impressive as I really liked him in the book too. Probably my favourite character in the show version.
The biggest change of all is the in Monsieur Thernardier. He and his wife provide light relief in the show, which is kinda needed, but in the book he is much more evil and threatening to the happiness of Jean Valjean and Cosette. Again this is just added depth to the story, but I thought it was useful in adding to the menacing air of it. But that is something that the rest of the show does enough, and it needs some comic moments, which he delivers with aplomb.
Finally, I can't finish without discussing the staging. The rotating section made it really easy to convey the thoughts of two sides of a divider, be it the garden fence or the barricade. And the staging for the barricade was just fantastic, I remember seeing it come on stage for the first time and saying that it was just cool.
Brilliant show. Now can't wait to finally let myself see the film.
Now obviously, as with all reviews, this is hugely subjective. But I thought they did a terrific job. The amount they had to cut out didn't detract from the story, it just gave more information on the background of a few people, most notably the link between Marius and Thernardier. This is just added depth to the brilliant work of Victor Hugo, but is far from essential.
Again, with two different versions you will always get different interpretations of characters. This is exaggerated in my view for Eponine. When I read the book I saw her as a little bit hopeless, hardly saying anything, but the musical had her as a much stronger person. Its also hard to be so quiet in a musical! I like her a lot more in this version, and she had one of my favourite songs in On My Own. Marius I found to be a smaller character in the stage show, although I did still really like him. I just would've liked to see more of him at the barricade as that was my favourite scene of his in the book.
I'm also ashamed to say that I found Gavroche to be just a bit too annoying in the show. I know he's an arrogant little kid so I should be annoyed by him, but it was worse than I thought. On the contrary I much preferred Jaevert in the show. Which is impressive as I really liked him in the book too. Probably my favourite character in the show version.
The biggest change of all is the in Monsieur Thernardier. He and his wife provide light relief in the show, which is kinda needed, but in the book he is much more evil and threatening to the happiness of Jean Valjean and Cosette. Again this is just added depth to the story, but I thought it was useful in adding to the menacing air of it. But that is something that the rest of the show does enough, and it needs some comic moments, which he delivers with aplomb.
Finally, I can't finish without discussing the staging. The rotating section made it really easy to convey the thoughts of two sides of a divider, be it the garden fence or the barricade. And the staging for the barricade was just fantastic, I remember seeing it come on stage for the first time and saying that it was just cool.
Brilliant show. Now can't wait to finally let myself see the film.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)