A Game of Thrones is over 700 pages - and to review it at the end would be stupid. I may not even get to the end. Though I'd love to finish it and move onto the sequels. So here's a non-spoiler review of the first 100 pages.
I suppose I've got into A Game of Thrones for two reasons. One; there's been a buzz about the TV series from the end of the first series, and even more recently from the ending of Series Three. So it's something that's always been in the corner of my eye. The second reason - that my brother's girlfriend lent my mum the book to read. Mum attempted it and got bored, so I attempted it and got bored.
And then (as I only read the first few sentences on my first attempt..) I tried again. And I'm hooked.
I'm not one for the fantasy genre, any books that take the principles of an old fashioned time, or any books that are big. But to find a big book that's modern that I can essentially fly through (if one can go that quickly through a 700 page book) I'm lucky, and to find a fantasy book so reliant on character and relationships is lucky too. It's the character and emotion that's important to me in every book. A Game of Thrones has this without getting too bogged down in the emotion. When emotion comes near, it skips to a new character, mentions it, and then talks about family feuds and sex.
If I'm honest, A Game of Thrones, without the swearing and the sex/nudity, could be a children's book. Get rid of a few families, and obviously the aforementioned things, and any teenager could read this at age 13. They could probably manage the endless names and family feuds a lot better than an adult reader can, anyway. So I imagine because all fantasy books are essentially children's stories, the author's put in the sex and the swearing and the "adult themes" to show that distinction. The prologue is gory, but gripping, and it succeeds in throwing you into the text.
The family feuds are even interesting. There are enough off shoots to make the book seem interesting and layered, and all of these slowly lead and hint to the bigger theme - which I presume is the fight for the Iron Throne. The characters are distinct and understandable, each of them has a personality - which is great for me, who hasn't seen the TV show. The dialogue is written for the era and yet still modern. The use of swear words threw me at first, I still keep thinking this is some Medieval book, but the fact the swear words are (so far) limited to the younger characters works great. The age distinctions are well written.
I normally hate books that jump perspectives. Melvin Burgess' Junk was one that confused me when it switched characters, yet A Game of Thrones handles it well. Perhaps that's why the characters feel so real and alive, and why you're so interested in them. Because you see it through their eyes, and the author is showing you only what he wants you to see. That goes back to my point about emotion. There's a fairly shocking event at some point (which is handled well - as the writing style remains simple the whole way through, allowing the themes to be complex, and allowing more dramatic events to be reacted to by the reader) and the action skips four days. Then two weeks. Yet this feels natural. In a book that lasts 700+ pages, there's no evidence of it dragging so far.
The simple fact is that I'm just fascinated. It is a completely different world, and the author is, although sometimes it seems pointlessly, taking away all of our laws and our knowledge. It is his own world, and it is a completely believable world. The relationships are ours, from our time, the morals and the ethics and the history is from a different world. The blending of the two makes this a perfectly accessible and interesting book. The character's personalities and relationships make me interested in all these political and historical feuds going on around the place. There are moments that shock - and they aren't shocking, they're just not from our world - and this almost loose nature in such a complex plot is welcoming.
The plot, although it has so many characters and names, is kept on top of at all times - and it doesn't feel that complex. Your head tricks you into thinking it might be - but it isn't. The book doesn't even take any getting used to. There are a few moments where paragraphs are spent explaining concepts of the world, and though they seem a bit dull and out of reach, you do pick them up as people talk about them.
Overall, it is a fascinating book. It's simply written, you can grasp it, and the characters feel real. You learn about each character individually, and the background characters even feel understandable. As long as you give this book space to explain, it will fill the space and extend itself further, unravelling concepts and mystery, deploying standard book techniques yet making them fascinating.
I can't wait to keep reading - and one day (when I've finished the book) I will watch the series.
Friday, 14 June 2013
Monday, 10 June 2013
Trilby Wearing Auton: The New Look!
TRILBY WEARING AUTON
THE NEW LOOK
This has been hinted at on my Twitter feed for a while and it's been accessible for a few weeks, but my Trilby Wearing Auton rebrand has officially begun! You can find me on TWITTER, TUMBLR, BLOGGER (Obviously), INSTAGRAM, YOUTUBE and SOUNDCLOUD, and all of those will have the same look and logo.
TWITTER: @trilbyauton
TUMBLR: trilbywearingauton
I'll be posting lots of random pictures and music to the Tumblr because apparently that's what people do..
BLOGGER: You're here!
And updates continue as normal.
INSTAGRAM: trilbywearingauton
More random pictures.
YOUTUBE: trilbywearingauton
The most important feature of the rebrand, I'll be posting lots of vlogs and videos onto here. Subscribe!
SOUNDCLOUD: trilbywearingauton
Recordings of poems and Audio Dramas should be on here soon.
Along with this, there will also be a new feature coming to this blog. The page above called "50 50" will soon be host to 50 word reviews of every Doctor Who episode ever, as I aim to complete a Marathon. It may not necessarily be in order, but hopefully concise reviews will make my Marathon of episodes easier to follow.
I hope you like the rebrand, and don't forget to keep checking here for updates and the various other places I now have.
Friday, 7 June 2013
Twelfth Doctor: Updated Speculation
The website Starburst has come into news from it's sources that the BBC will announce the new Doctor tomorrow, Saturday 8th June. This announcement, being just one week since the announcement of Matt Smith's departure, is to apparently stop a Sunday paper scoop. And the article puts forward three names from it's sources...
This isn't spoilers - just speculation, and here's my thoughts on the three latest names put forward..
DOMHNALL GLEESON
He's played a Weasley (no not one of the main two) in the last Harry Potter film - and he's ginger. But that's the thing. Has he only been put forward as a name (made up as a name) because he is ginger? Because his IMDB does show he isn't working at the minute? (Well, he's in something currently in pre-production, so does this rule him out anyway?) I think he'd be an interesting choice. Purely on look, he looks 'ordinary' enough to throw people, and unpredictability is good. The thing is - I still think he looks far too young. He's 30 - the same age as Matt Smith - and I'm pretty sure the Producers would feel that an older choice is better..
DANIEL KALUUYA
A Doctor that's not white is something often speculated - and I think that's both more likely and a good idea. However - Daniel Kaluuya is a bad idea. He's the only one of the three I've seen act - which isn't good for him. He played Barclay in 2009's Planet of the Dead. Which he was great in. But he really wouldn't fit the role of the Doctor. I can't imagine him acting differently (having seen him in Johnny English Reborn too), and I can't imagine him being the Doctor. Furthermore - he's only 23! He's way way too young to be the Doctor. Sorry.
DOMINIC COOPER
He looks older, he looks different, and his appearance already gives him the darker, more serious edge I feel the Doctor now needs. And facial hair. (Domhnall Gleeson has this as well.) The only thing that I believe will stop Cooper getting the role is his involvement in several big movies, and his upcoming involvement in Dracula, which is currently in pre-production. So while I think his choice is unpredictable - I worry he might be a little bit too big for the role.
We'll have to wait and see - and maybe we will find out tomorrow who the Doctor is. I think that might take the edge of Matt leaving - but I can't wait to find out who the new Doctor is either. I'm happy for Cooper or Gleeson to have the role (more happy for Cooper though) - and you can see my other suggestions here.
Geronimo.
This isn't spoilers - just speculation, and here's my thoughts on the three latest names put forward..
DOMHNALL GLEESON
He's played a Weasley (no not one of the main two) in the last Harry Potter film - and he's ginger. But that's the thing. Has he only been put forward as a name (made up as a name) because he is ginger? Because his IMDB does show he isn't working at the minute? (Well, he's in something currently in pre-production, so does this rule him out anyway?) I think he'd be an interesting choice. Purely on look, he looks 'ordinary' enough to throw people, and unpredictability is good. The thing is - I still think he looks far too young. He's 30 - the same age as Matt Smith - and I'm pretty sure the Producers would feel that an older choice is better..
DANIEL KALUUYA
A Doctor that's not white is something often speculated - and I think that's both more likely and a good idea. However - Daniel Kaluuya is a bad idea. He's the only one of the three I've seen act - which isn't good for him. He played Barclay in 2009's Planet of the Dead. Which he was great in. But he really wouldn't fit the role of the Doctor. I can't imagine him acting differently (having seen him in Johnny English Reborn too), and I can't imagine him being the Doctor. Furthermore - he's only 23! He's way way too young to be the Doctor. Sorry.
DOMINIC COOPER
He looks older, he looks different, and his appearance already gives him the darker, more serious edge I feel the Doctor now needs. And facial hair. (Domhnall Gleeson has this as well.) The only thing that I believe will stop Cooper getting the role is his involvement in several big movies, and his upcoming involvement in Dracula, which is currently in pre-production. So while I think his choice is unpredictable - I worry he might be a little bit too big for the role.
We'll have to wait and see - and maybe we will find out tomorrow who the Doctor is. I think that might take the edge of Matt leaving - but I can't wait to find out who the new Doctor is either. I'm happy for Cooper or Gleeson to have the role (more happy for Cooper though) - and you can see my other suggestions here.
Geronimo.
Sunday, 2 June 2013
The Twelfth Doctor
I apologise for doing the same as everyone else will be doing for the next month, but I couldn't resist. Yesterday (June 1st) it was announced that Matt Smith was leaving after four years as the Doctor. Personally, I dont really mind. I wanted him to stay longer, as I think he's been one of the best actors ever to play the Doctor, and it's a joy watching him. However, there's been increasing speculation about him leaving, plus he deserves to be doing bigger things. So yeah, not surprised he's leaving. A bit disappointed though. The news was hinted at strongly by Doctor Who Online and a few others, so most people on Twitter knew that the announcement would be made. Along with the speculation, I feel the rumours and 'leaks' beforehand took away from the actual announcement. We can only hope the announcement of the new Doctor is handled much better.
So who should be the new Doctor? It's times like this I realise how behind I am with modern actors and possibly actresses. I could easily suggest actors from The Prisoner or Sapphire & Steel, but that's not much good. So after some research, a delve through my own memory and a look at some other lists - here's who I believe should play The Twelfth Doctor. These are in no particular order.
A. BEN WHISHAW
Probably one of my top choices after his performance in Skyfall. He's quite Matt Smith like in look and probably age, so maybe on this occasion it wouldn't work. However, he's certainly a good enough actor to play the part, and it's the quality of acting that matters more than quirkiness of personality. Which is why some comedians and comedy actors people are mentioning, who I've not really any idea about, would be bad choices.
B. EDDIE REDMAYNE
This one's down to BBC Breakfast, but it's been in my head for a lot longer. At one stage I was planning a series of Figure Adventures with a custom Eddie Redmayne figure (I never made). He'd certainly be different. I've seen him in both Birdsong and Les Miserables, and in both he just stares at people and falls in love. So it'd be good to see him have to act differently, and he'd bring something different to the role. I actually could not imagine what he'd do, and that unpredictability would be great. No one would be able to imagine what he'd be like, but it would certainly be one of the strangest incarnations of the Time Lord - so why not pick Eddie? (Well, he's doing massive films for one..)
C. ANDREW-LEE POTTS
This is another name that gets thrown about by fandom, and probably the same fandom that throw round Benedict Cumberbatch's name. But I think he'd be good, a bit more predictable than Redmayne, and perhaps too used to the kind of circles Doctor Who gets mixed with. I'd feel comfortable with this choice though, but would hope he could do something a little bit different to surprise us all.
D. SIR IAN McKELLEN
Because obviously, he is the best actor in creation, and there should be no other choice. He's not too old either. And don't even get me started on the people who say the Doctor needs to be good looking.
E. JAMES McAVOY
He's both a good actor and I think, a good choice. He's, again, perhaps far too big for the series, but it'd be interesting to see him tackle the role.
F. OLIVIA COLMAN
Yes - a woman! I'm not sure a woman would work at the minute, for the following reason:
I was discussing this with a friend, a female, the other day when watching City of Death (she made it to the end of Part One) and she said there should be a female Doctor. And my issue with that is that it would be so difficult not to write them as River Song. Especially if Moffat, who seems to write most female characters the same, is staying on for Series 8, apparently. If you had a different writer who could handle female characters well, and a 'normal' actress, who wasn't picked on personality on character acting, then it might work. But at the minute, an over the top female actress written by Moffat seems too likely and would be awful to watch.
So Olivia would be a good choice, she seems to be a good mix of 'normal' actress and comedy actress, and she can act all kind of genres (and she comes across as a little bit insane, which is always good). I'd be confident with this choice - but perhaps not with Moffat as the writer.
G. ANEURIN BARNARD
I need to thank Blogtor Who for this suggestion because I'd never even heard of him. He acted alongside Karen Gillan in 'We'll Take Manhattan', and he's definitely got an unearthly, darker look about him. If the Doctor is meant to be becoming darker than maybe it's time for an actor that reflects that, and after watching some brief clips and looking at a few pictures, I'm thinking maybe he might be a good choice. He's unknown enough, he's interesting enough, and with the right look, he should be a possible. Oh and he's Welsh, which is awesome.
NEW SUGGESTION: H. HARRY LLOYD
Here's another suggestion! Harry Lloyd would probably be my ideal choice. He played Banes wonderfully in Human Nature/Family of Blood, and he's a superb actor. He's posher (which is part of the criteria I mentioned below) and he would have a more serious approach to the role, which is good, because we need a bit of that drama and mystery back. I honestly would be sooo happy if Harry Lloyd got the role. Please Moffat.
CRITERIA
So if I can't pick a specific actor, and let's face it the list above isn't great, then I can pick criteria:
Out of the ones I have suggested, I'd want Redmayne or Lloyd the most, just because of the unpredictability and cos I like them as actors. But it's likely a 'jobbing' actor will be picked, that I've not heard of. That's fair enough, I look forward to finding out.
And as for how Matt will regenerate - we'll have to wait and see....
But please, let the word 'love' not be mentioned nor the Sonic Screwdriver overused in his last episode.
So who should be the new Doctor? It's times like this I realise how behind I am with modern actors and possibly actresses. I could easily suggest actors from The Prisoner or Sapphire & Steel, but that's not much good. So after some research, a delve through my own memory and a look at some other lists - here's who I believe should play The Twelfth Doctor. These are in no particular order.
A. BEN WHISHAW
Probably one of my top choices after his performance in Skyfall. He's quite Matt Smith like in look and probably age, so maybe on this occasion it wouldn't work. However, he's certainly a good enough actor to play the part, and it's the quality of acting that matters more than quirkiness of personality. Which is why some comedians and comedy actors people are mentioning, who I've not really any idea about, would be bad choices.
B. EDDIE REDMAYNE
This one's down to BBC Breakfast, but it's been in my head for a lot longer. At one stage I was planning a series of Figure Adventures with a custom Eddie Redmayne figure (I never made). He'd certainly be different. I've seen him in both Birdsong and Les Miserables, and in both he just stares at people and falls in love. So it'd be good to see him have to act differently, and he'd bring something different to the role. I actually could not imagine what he'd do, and that unpredictability would be great. No one would be able to imagine what he'd be like, but it would certainly be one of the strangest incarnations of the Time Lord - so why not pick Eddie? (Well, he's doing massive films for one..)
C. ANDREW-LEE POTTS
This is another name that gets thrown about by fandom, and probably the same fandom that throw round Benedict Cumberbatch's name. But I think he'd be good, a bit more predictable than Redmayne, and perhaps too used to the kind of circles Doctor Who gets mixed with. I'd feel comfortable with this choice though, but would hope he could do something a little bit different to surprise us all.
D. SIR IAN McKELLEN
Because obviously, he is the best actor in creation, and there should be no other choice. He's not too old either. And don't even get me started on the people who say the Doctor needs to be good looking.
E. JAMES McAVOY
He's both a good actor and I think, a good choice. He's, again, perhaps far too big for the series, but it'd be interesting to see him tackle the role.
F. OLIVIA COLMAN
Yes - a woman! I'm not sure a woman would work at the minute, for the following reason:
I was discussing this with a friend, a female, the other day when watching City of Death (she made it to the end of Part One) and she said there should be a female Doctor. And my issue with that is that it would be so difficult not to write them as River Song. Especially if Moffat, who seems to write most female characters the same, is staying on for Series 8, apparently. If you had a different writer who could handle female characters well, and a 'normal' actress, who wasn't picked on personality on character acting, then it might work. But at the minute, an over the top female actress written by Moffat seems too likely and would be awful to watch.
So Olivia would be a good choice, she seems to be a good mix of 'normal' actress and comedy actress, and she can act all kind of genres (and she comes across as a little bit insane, which is always good). I'd be confident with this choice - but perhaps not with Moffat as the writer.
G. ANEURIN BARNARD
I need to thank Blogtor Who for this suggestion because I'd never even heard of him. He acted alongside Karen Gillan in 'We'll Take Manhattan', and he's definitely got an unearthly, darker look about him. If the Doctor is meant to be becoming darker than maybe it's time for an actor that reflects that, and after watching some brief clips and looking at a few pictures, I'm thinking maybe he might be a good choice. He's unknown enough, he's interesting enough, and with the right look, he should be a possible. Oh and he's Welsh, which is awesome.
NEW SUGGESTION: H. HARRY LLOYD
Here's another suggestion! Harry Lloyd would probably be my ideal choice. He played Banes wonderfully in Human Nature/Family of Blood, and he's a superb actor. He's posher (which is part of the criteria I mentioned below) and he would have a more serious approach to the role, which is good, because we need a bit of that drama and mystery back. I honestly would be sooo happy if Harry Lloyd got the role. Please Moffat.
CRITERIA
So if I can't pick a specific actor, and let's face it the list above isn't great, then I can pick criteria:
- Older. Not too much older, unless it's Ian McKellen, but definitely older than Smith was.
- Posher. That'd be interesting.
- Without dark hair. But not necessarily ginger...
- Absolutely under no circumstances ever a fan film Doctor. Ever.
Out of the ones I have suggested, I'd want Redmayne or Lloyd the most, just because of the unpredictability and cos I like them as actors. But it's likely a 'jobbing' actor will be picked, that I've not heard of. That's fair enough, I look forward to finding out.
And as for how Matt will regenerate - we'll have to wait and see....
But please, let the word 'love' not be mentioned nor the Sonic Screwdriver overused in his last episode.
Wednesday, 29 May 2013
Star Trek Into Darknes (2013) Review
If you've read my review of the first film, which can be found here, you'll know that I was surprised at my enjoyment of it. I've never been a big Star Trek fan, never seen the original series, and pretty much, aside from the first film and Wikipedia, only had an idea of the Klingons, Spock and a few names of planets and things.
I should point out that there will be SPOILERS in this review, but they won't start yet.
Star Trek Into Darkness was considered by the two mates I went with to be a lot better than the first. I mean it's probably a while since they saw the first. In fact, my friend Rebecca is going to see it a third time on Thursday, and when she went with me it was the second. So that proved to me it must be pretty epic. And indeed - it was epic. I'm just not sure epic worked.
I was going to review this last night, but my head's in a bit of a jumble over it. I did enjoy it, don't get me wrong, and I did thing it was epic. The explosions and battles were thrilling, the direction was amazing once again (bar a couple of close ups which seemed a little too close) and the acting was superb. I liked Kirk a lot more this time, and found myself liking Spock less, as he was getting a little tiresome by the end. But Spock's still my favourite, so. Benedict Cumberbatch gave an outstanding performance as John Harrison, and his character was completely believable. I half expected to watch an evil Sherlock, but it didn't happen, Cumberbatch's Harrison was completely believable and horrible. I truly, truly hated the character by the time it had finished, and yet in little moments throughout he was likeable. It was strange - which was possibly part of my problem.
Because the film was good - but that's it. It was spectacular in the sense it was a spectacle, and it did look incredible, the CGI was incredibly realistic. But it didn't have much of a plot, or much of a structure. Rather than pace out a good story to build up the characters, the choice was made to dump the plot in ten minutes, which was spoken so quickly I personally found it quite hard to keep up with, and spend the rest of the time with fight scenes and explosions. Which would have been great, except they went on for so long I found myself forgetting what the purpose of the explosions and fight scenes was.
SPOILERS FOLLOW
When the film begins, it's great. The opening "mid-adventure" trick is used and that's always a good thing, and it worked well, with good Enterprise and Volcano and Red Tree Planet scenes and lots of running and so on. That was exciting. Then, Spock's life is saved by Kirk, and it later transpires Spock filed a report saying this and Kirk's ship is getting taken off of him. This is where the problems start for me. Films always use the "let's split up the team" trick and the "make it look like the hero won't have a ship" trick until something happens to make him get it back as quickly as he lost it. This film used the cliche, and although it didn't dwell on it for too long - it was too busy dwelling on other things.
Kirk saving Spock's life is THE plot. That is it. All the stuff with John Harrison is there just to constantly test the Kirk/Spock relationship - which would be great except they make it so obvious. The film is too obviously about the friendship, at the expense of any real plot. When there could be time speaking about John Harrison or the cryo-tubes or something, they talk about Kirk saving Spock's life, again and again and again. The incident is repeated far too much, and it makes the main theme of the film far too obvious. They don't stop talking about Kirk saving Spock's life - it is too much. I got bored of them having the same argument about it.
So what about the excuse for the explosions and violent fight scenes (again that's another point, in places the film felt too fanboy-ish, with lots of fight scenes and big villains, whereas the first one I could like more because it was more accepting to nu-Trekkies like myself). The excuse was John Harrison. As I said, he was played brilliantly, I can't fault Cumberbatch's performance. And the revelation as Harrison as Kahn (said there were spoilers) no doubt made lots of Trekkies scream in delight. My friend Jake certainly did. To "remake" The Wrath of Kahn, which I'll be watching soon, is an interesting choice, and handled surprisingly well by those who publicised it. If you're a long Star Trek fan no doubt the revelation was thrilling, but the plot was just a little too fast and dropped in for people like me, who didn't have a clue. But that's more a personal issue with it.
It's still hard to pinpoint my feelings. I know I preferred the first film, just because it had plot threaded throughout the action sequences. The action sequences did feel too long and dropped in here, and I found myself breaking away from the action. There was too much of a contrast as well. A hugely long fight or explosion scene would lead into a long talky scene. The meeting scene was very good - but the long conversation with the Admiral where Kirk tries to get permission, or the tortuously dull conversation with Pike that Kirk has near the beginning contrasted too much. As did the "info-dump" scene with Cumberbatch in the cell. They all felt too long and too political. When they were on screen I wanted action. When the action arrived it lasted for too long and made me want talking that wasn't quite so dull. So it seemed like an odd mix of a film, which is where my comment about strange pacing comes from.
I will probably remember more points about this - but that pretty much sums up my feelings. It was good, and it probably needs a rewatch, but it was a little bit too all over the place. The pacing of the scenes seemed mixed up and out of place sometimes, and there was occasionally too much violence or action. I felt a bit alienated (pardon the pun) by the use of Kahn as well, and strangely even lost track or which team he was actually on. He was the bad guy, I think, but a bad guy with good intentions... And then the Admiral was the same... But they didn't like each other.... I just felt it was a bit everywhere. For me, Star Trek doesn't seem about the action, it should be about the exploring and the action that comes out of this. This tried too hard to be Star Trek The Action Movie, and as a non-dedicated fan and 'casual' viewer, that didn't feel right.
I should point out that there will be SPOILERS in this review, but they won't start yet.
Star Trek Into Darkness was considered by the two mates I went with to be a lot better than the first. I mean it's probably a while since they saw the first. In fact, my friend Rebecca is going to see it a third time on Thursday, and when she went with me it was the second. So that proved to me it must be pretty epic. And indeed - it was epic. I'm just not sure epic worked.
I was going to review this last night, but my head's in a bit of a jumble over it. I did enjoy it, don't get me wrong, and I did thing it was epic. The explosions and battles were thrilling, the direction was amazing once again (bar a couple of close ups which seemed a little too close) and the acting was superb. I liked Kirk a lot more this time, and found myself liking Spock less, as he was getting a little tiresome by the end. But Spock's still my favourite, so. Benedict Cumberbatch gave an outstanding performance as John Harrison, and his character was completely believable. I half expected to watch an evil Sherlock, but it didn't happen, Cumberbatch's Harrison was completely believable and horrible. I truly, truly hated the character by the time it had finished, and yet in little moments throughout he was likeable. It was strange - which was possibly part of my problem.
Because the film was good - but that's it. It was spectacular in the sense it was a spectacle, and it did look incredible, the CGI was incredibly realistic. But it didn't have much of a plot, or much of a structure. Rather than pace out a good story to build up the characters, the choice was made to dump the plot in ten minutes, which was spoken so quickly I personally found it quite hard to keep up with, and spend the rest of the time with fight scenes and explosions. Which would have been great, except they went on for so long I found myself forgetting what the purpose of the explosions and fight scenes was.
SPOILERS FOLLOW
When the film begins, it's great. The opening "mid-adventure" trick is used and that's always a good thing, and it worked well, with good Enterprise and Volcano and Red Tree Planet scenes and lots of running and so on. That was exciting. Then, Spock's life is saved by Kirk, and it later transpires Spock filed a report saying this and Kirk's ship is getting taken off of him. This is where the problems start for me. Films always use the "let's split up the team" trick and the "make it look like the hero won't have a ship" trick until something happens to make him get it back as quickly as he lost it. This film used the cliche, and although it didn't dwell on it for too long - it was too busy dwelling on other things.
Kirk saving Spock's life is THE plot. That is it. All the stuff with John Harrison is there just to constantly test the Kirk/Spock relationship - which would be great except they make it so obvious. The film is too obviously about the friendship, at the expense of any real plot. When there could be time speaking about John Harrison or the cryo-tubes or something, they talk about Kirk saving Spock's life, again and again and again. The incident is repeated far too much, and it makes the main theme of the film far too obvious. They don't stop talking about Kirk saving Spock's life - it is too much. I got bored of them having the same argument about it.
So what about the excuse for the explosions and violent fight scenes (again that's another point, in places the film felt too fanboy-ish, with lots of fight scenes and big villains, whereas the first one I could like more because it was more accepting to nu-Trekkies like myself). The excuse was John Harrison. As I said, he was played brilliantly, I can't fault Cumberbatch's performance. And the revelation as Harrison as Kahn (said there were spoilers) no doubt made lots of Trekkies scream in delight. My friend Jake certainly did. To "remake" The Wrath of Kahn, which I'll be watching soon, is an interesting choice, and handled surprisingly well by those who publicised it. If you're a long Star Trek fan no doubt the revelation was thrilling, but the plot was just a little too fast and dropped in for people like me, who didn't have a clue. But that's more a personal issue with it.
It's still hard to pinpoint my feelings. I know I preferred the first film, just because it had plot threaded throughout the action sequences. The action sequences did feel too long and dropped in here, and I found myself breaking away from the action. There was too much of a contrast as well. A hugely long fight or explosion scene would lead into a long talky scene. The meeting scene was very good - but the long conversation with the Admiral where Kirk tries to get permission, or the tortuously dull conversation with Pike that Kirk has near the beginning contrasted too much. As did the "info-dump" scene with Cumberbatch in the cell. They all felt too long and too political. When they were on screen I wanted action. When the action arrived it lasted for too long and made me want talking that wasn't quite so dull. So it seemed like an odd mix of a film, which is where my comment about strange pacing comes from.
I will probably remember more points about this - but that pretty much sums up my feelings. It was good, and it probably needs a rewatch, but it was a little bit too all over the place. The pacing of the scenes seemed mixed up and out of place sometimes, and there was occasionally too much violence or action. I felt a bit alienated (pardon the pun) by the use of Kahn as well, and strangely even lost track or which team he was actually on. He was the bad guy, I think, but a bad guy with good intentions... And then the Admiral was the same... But they didn't like each other.... I just felt it was a bit everywhere. For me, Star Trek doesn't seem about the action, it should be about the exploring and the action that comes out of this. This tried too hard to be Star Trek The Action Movie, and as a non-dedicated fan and 'casual' viewer, that didn't feel right.
Saturday, 25 May 2013
Star Trek (2009) Review
I am not a Star Trek fan.
That is one thing that needs to be made clear. It's not because I don't enjoy it, it's simply because I've only ever bothered to see one episode, half a classic film, and now this reboot. I was lent the Original Series on box set by my mate, but I only managed the aforementioned one episode, and although I really enjoyed it - I just couldn't be bothered to carry on watching. Oh and the episode order was all weird on the disc. That confused me.
So why did I bother to watch the 2009 film? Well, I've been keeping up to date with the trailers for Into Darkness, and planned to go and see it. And next Sunday, I and two mates will be going to see it, just because it looked so epic. In order to catch up, I borrowed (I'm making it look as if I never buy anything myself) the 2009 film.
And I loved it. It was really, properly enjoyable. And it's great being able to watch something so massive for so many people, and yet have to worry about what it means for the fans myself. When I watch Doctor Who I can't but judge what the fans will think, or what I think as a fan. With Star Trek I can come to an unbias, open opinion, based on what I feel rather than what I should feel. I am going to look into the fan side of things, but hopefully I won't be a Trekkie any time soon. I want to enjoy these films as good films - not as "oh my God they've wrecked our continuity!" films.
JJ Abrams does direct this very well. He likes his lens flares (which are alright, but sometimes a little bit pointless - I mean, why do we need one when Kirk lifts up a glass in a pub?) but aside from that he is very good. The CG Shots were faultless. They were truly, truly amazing, and felt completely realistic. All of the space shots were great. The thing that annoys with me movies is that the writers never get a look in. The script can be incredible, but it's always the director's film. So I'd like to congratulate the writers on constructing a complex and well thought through script that kept me interested all the way through. Brilliant.
The characters were all written really well. The acting was pretty much superb all the way through as well. I'm not the greatest fan of Kirk as a character, or indeed the way he's acted, but everyone else is really good. I love Spock (he was the only character I really even knew the name of, shamefully, before I watched the film) and Zachary Quinto (thanks for the name Wikipedia) plays him brilliantly. The film provided a great backdrop for people like me, who don't have a clue, without making the background story dull or unemotional. Though both Spock and Kirk have a rough time in terms of fights. I thought there were a little bit too many of them.
The plot itself was surprisingly "timey-wimey" (I'm sorry, I don't know who else to phrase it). I was expecting lots more alien fight scenes rather than a Spock from a different timeline who popped back but couldn't but could help his alternate self to become best mates with Kirk and defeat aliens from another reality who were looking for Spock because he'd destroyed their planet but he hadn't really but he was going to if he was a different person. And strangely - I had no problem in understanding all that, the film made it quite easy to follow. I liked the idea of the black hole leading to a new reality as well.
So now, I'm definitely looking forward to Into Darkness. I'm not sure the crew of the Enterprise going after a terrorist is quite the right thing for Star Trek (sorry, that was a bit of a fan criticism wasn't it?) but I'm looking forward to seeing Benedict Cumberbatch in it. It can only help the epicness. The best thing about Star Trek is that I actually want to watch it again. That doesn't matter with many films, but I genuinely enjoyed it and want to sit through it all again. I'll have to buy both DVDs when they inevitably come out together.
Researching on Wikipedia, I think I understand that Star Trek (the film) is a new reality, and the older (or Prime) Spock (who was played by the original actor, as I'd guessed, which is clever) was from the TV Series reality. So he popped back to push the new reality along the way. That was nice. I've no idea if fans liked that, but it was a good way of making sure their TV continuity was untouched and a new one could begin. I just assumed, as I watching it, that the alternate reality Prime Spock was from was just a different reality, and that the film one was real. But it's nice the film one is a fresh start, and it means I can follow it better.
I can't give Star Trek 10/10 because it's me and I never do, plus Into Darkness may beat it, but I'd give it a.... 8.7/10. Lost marks for extra lens flares, excessive fight scenes, and the random bit with Kirk stealing the car. They're tiny niggles aren't they?
Maybe I'm becoming a fan already.
That is one thing that needs to be made clear. It's not because I don't enjoy it, it's simply because I've only ever bothered to see one episode, half a classic film, and now this reboot. I was lent the Original Series on box set by my mate, but I only managed the aforementioned one episode, and although I really enjoyed it - I just couldn't be bothered to carry on watching. Oh and the episode order was all weird on the disc. That confused me.
So why did I bother to watch the 2009 film? Well, I've been keeping up to date with the trailers for Into Darkness, and planned to go and see it. And next Sunday, I and two mates will be going to see it, just because it looked so epic. In order to catch up, I borrowed (I'm making it look as if I never buy anything myself) the 2009 film.
And I loved it. It was really, properly enjoyable. And it's great being able to watch something so massive for so many people, and yet have to worry about what it means for the fans myself. When I watch Doctor Who I can't but judge what the fans will think, or what I think as a fan. With Star Trek I can come to an unbias, open opinion, based on what I feel rather than what I should feel. I am going to look into the fan side of things, but hopefully I won't be a Trekkie any time soon. I want to enjoy these films as good films - not as "oh my God they've wrecked our continuity!" films.
JJ Abrams does direct this very well. He likes his lens flares (which are alright, but sometimes a little bit pointless - I mean, why do we need one when Kirk lifts up a glass in a pub?) but aside from that he is very good. The CG Shots were faultless. They were truly, truly amazing, and felt completely realistic. All of the space shots were great. The thing that annoys with me movies is that the writers never get a look in. The script can be incredible, but it's always the director's film. So I'd like to congratulate the writers on constructing a complex and well thought through script that kept me interested all the way through. Brilliant.
The characters were all written really well. The acting was pretty much superb all the way through as well. I'm not the greatest fan of Kirk as a character, or indeed the way he's acted, but everyone else is really good. I love Spock (he was the only character I really even knew the name of, shamefully, before I watched the film) and Zachary Quinto (thanks for the name Wikipedia) plays him brilliantly. The film provided a great backdrop for people like me, who don't have a clue, without making the background story dull or unemotional. Though both Spock and Kirk have a rough time in terms of fights. I thought there were a little bit too many of them.
The plot itself was surprisingly "timey-wimey" (I'm sorry, I don't know who else to phrase it). I was expecting lots more alien fight scenes rather than a Spock from a different timeline who popped back but couldn't but could help his alternate self to become best mates with Kirk and defeat aliens from another reality who were looking for Spock because he'd destroyed their planet but he hadn't really but he was going to if he was a different person. And strangely - I had no problem in understanding all that, the film made it quite easy to follow. I liked the idea of the black hole leading to a new reality as well.
So now, I'm definitely looking forward to Into Darkness. I'm not sure the crew of the Enterprise going after a terrorist is quite the right thing for Star Trek (sorry, that was a bit of a fan criticism wasn't it?) but I'm looking forward to seeing Benedict Cumberbatch in it. It can only help the epicness. The best thing about Star Trek is that I actually want to watch it again. That doesn't matter with many films, but I genuinely enjoyed it and want to sit through it all again. I'll have to buy both DVDs when they inevitably come out together.
Researching on Wikipedia, I think I understand that Star Trek (the film) is a new reality, and the older (or Prime) Spock (who was played by the original actor, as I'd guessed, which is clever) was from the TV Series reality. So he popped back to push the new reality along the way. That was nice. I've no idea if fans liked that, but it was a good way of making sure their TV continuity was untouched and a new one could begin. I just assumed, as I watching it, that the alternate reality Prime Spock was from was just a different reality, and that the film one was real. But it's nice the film one is a fresh start, and it means I can follow it better.
I can't give Star Trek 10/10 because it's me and I never do, plus Into Darkness may beat it, but I'd give it a.... 8.7/10. Lost marks for extra lens flares, excessive fight scenes, and the random bit with Kirk stealing the car. They're tiny niggles aren't they?
Maybe I'm becoming a fan already.
Sunday, 19 May 2013
The Name of the Doctor Review [MASSIVE SPOILERS]
Huge spoilers for The Name of the Doctor follow - you have been warned.
This is the finale we've all been looking forward to - and I was surprisingly quite excited. I commented on Twitter that I haven't been this excited about a finale for ages. I certainly don't remember feeling it for Series 5 and 6 (although both of those finales were better than those that had gone before), and perhaps I was for The End of Time but that was extinguished pretty quick. The Series 4 finale? Maybe I was excited for Rose coming back. The Series 3 finale? I was definitely excited for. So there you go. The first time I've been really excited for a final in six years.
Like the Series 6 finale, the story wasn't an adventure as such. It had no real story of it's own, it was more there to tie up the ends and be exciting and interesting. It was both exciting and interesting, and despite the lack of story (that was probably only ever really going to get done in a two-parter), it was really really good. In fact, most of fandom agrees that it was really really good. I say most of course - I haven't been on Gallifrey Base yet.
The Doctor's Greatest Secret
So yes of course his name wasn't revealed as we all knew it wasn't. That didn't stop us worrying deep down. But of course we'd probably all thought "well if it's not his name, what does his name mean". And of course - it's about keeping the name of the Doctor intact, in one piece, morally correct. The arrival of John Hurt as the Doctor (more of him later) provided a good last minute twist, and it's always nice when they use the episode name in the actual episode.
John Hurt
I'm not entirely convinced how much of a Doctor he's going to be - but then that's the point. He's meant to be different. And now some people hopefully understand that the Doctor isn't called John Hurt (maybe the BBC should have considered how they did that...), there are lots of questions as to who he is. The most common answer is 'The Time War' Doctor. He probably is, it makes sense - but it would still be lovely if he was something completely different. I am looking forward to seeing how it works though, especially with the chemistry Matt and John had very briefly on screen.
The Old Doctors
Aside from some dodgy editing and colourisation (most notably the moment where Clara falls face forward in the park after seeing Troughton), this bit was lovely. And it's lovely they finally made use of that pointless green screen in The Invasion of Time as well. That story needed a bit of picking up. It was fairly obvious from the moment they revealed the picture, and to some even before that, that Clara would be forcing the Doctor on his way through time and space. It was a lovely twist. But Clara needed a headdress.
Clara
At last, characterisation! Clara has finally become a proper, fully rounded character, who engages on her own with other characters. She's amiable, she has her own relationship with the Doctor (though I'm still not keen on her constantly being dropped off to look after the kids) and she's, at last, a complete character. Special mentions to Neil Cross and Neil Gaiman for pushing her along that track. Oh and Steve Thompson.
The Gang
Vastra, Strax and Jenny were a lot better. Strax's humour was back on form after dipping slightly in The Crimson Horror, and Vastra and Jenny were good too. The moment when Jenny declares "I think I've been murdered" was actually shocking - Doctor Who needs more of these moments!
River Song
For me, River was the only slightly dodgy link in the episode. She didn't quite fit in with the tone of it. There were quite a lot of very quick tone changes, laughing one minute, Dr Simeon being threatening the next, but they worked quite well.With River, tiny moments felt out of place. She doesn't fit the show any more. She, ironically, only fits in as a ghost or an echo, not as a complete character. However her purpose in being there, aside from turning up and practically narrating the story annoyingly once or twice, was fulfilled in the ending. She had an ending as a character. I like the fact that the Doctor has, in an almost unspoken way, reached the end of his timeline with River, and it's good they had a proper goodbye. What was better, is that the Doctor's line after his kiss with River actually made me laugh! I was quite surprised. The kiss itself I thought worked - though clearly fans didn't. But then they didn't in 1996 either, so they'll get used to it. It was, to my knowledge, the first proper kiss (not a genetic transfer, random Cassandra kiss, vortex transfer or half-human Doctor/Rose kiss) that the Doctor has actually.. performed since 1996. So I was happy. Strangely.
Dr Simeon and his Whispermen
Were amazing. Richard E Grant was absolutely outstanding, and it was nice to see the Great Intelligence being the ones who want to rewrite the Doctor's life. Out of all the aliens that have encountered him over and over again - it's the Intelligence, who have come up against him on screen three times. I thought that was a nice win for classic fans. I'm glad the Intelligence has been so prominent in the series. The Whispermen worked well, as did their rhyming couplets. I'm not entirely sure why they were there - parts of the Great Intelligence of just undertakers, but they were good. And their entrance in just murdering Jenny was certainly unforgettable.
The Day We Went to Trenzalore
It was incredible. It looked incredible, and the idea of it was incredible as well. The direction in this episode was absolutely superb, and the acting was different to how it normally is, and amazing. It was acted with complete seriousness, which really added an edge to the scenes where the Doctor goes to his grave. Literally. The whole episode was pieced together really well, and it was paced much better than some other episodes. And the sonic screwdriver was barely used!
Overall - this wasn't a perfect Doctor Who episode. It couldn't be. There wasn't enough of a standalone plot, and it was a little bit too reflective to be perfect. But, for what it was, as a look back and tie up things episode - it was perfect. When compared to other Doctor Who episodes this has to be looked at with the whole of Clara and Simeon and River's arcs - so it can't really be judged independently.
Quite clearly though - it was simply awesome.
The series on a whole was good - but come on Moffat - we can do better than this.
This is the finale we've all been looking forward to - and I was surprisingly quite excited. I commented on Twitter that I haven't been this excited about a finale for ages. I certainly don't remember feeling it for Series 5 and 6 (although both of those finales were better than those that had gone before), and perhaps I was for The End of Time but that was extinguished pretty quick. The Series 4 finale? Maybe I was excited for Rose coming back. The Series 3 finale? I was definitely excited for. So there you go. The first time I've been really excited for a final in six years.
Like the Series 6 finale, the story wasn't an adventure as such. It had no real story of it's own, it was more there to tie up the ends and be exciting and interesting. It was both exciting and interesting, and despite the lack of story (that was probably only ever really going to get done in a two-parter), it was really really good. In fact, most of fandom agrees that it was really really good. I say most of course - I haven't been on Gallifrey Base yet.
The Doctor's Greatest Secret
So yes of course his name wasn't revealed as we all knew it wasn't. That didn't stop us worrying deep down. But of course we'd probably all thought "well if it's not his name, what does his name mean". And of course - it's about keeping the name of the Doctor intact, in one piece, morally correct. The arrival of John Hurt as the Doctor (more of him later) provided a good last minute twist, and it's always nice when they use the episode name in the actual episode.
John Hurt
I'm not entirely convinced how much of a Doctor he's going to be - but then that's the point. He's meant to be different. And now some people hopefully understand that the Doctor isn't called John Hurt (maybe the BBC should have considered how they did that...), there are lots of questions as to who he is. The most common answer is 'The Time War' Doctor. He probably is, it makes sense - but it would still be lovely if he was something completely different. I am looking forward to seeing how it works though, especially with the chemistry Matt and John had very briefly on screen.
The Old Doctors
Aside from some dodgy editing and colourisation (most notably the moment where Clara falls face forward in the park after seeing Troughton), this bit was lovely. And it's lovely they finally made use of that pointless green screen in The Invasion of Time as well. That story needed a bit of picking up. It was fairly obvious from the moment they revealed the picture, and to some even before that, that Clara would be forcing the Doctor on his way through time and space. It was a lovely twist. But Clara needed a headdress.
Clara
At last, characterisation! Clara has finally become a proper, fully rounded character, who engages on her own with other characters. She's amiable, she has her own relationship with the Doctor (though I'm still not keen on her constantly being dropped off to look after the kids) and she's, at last, a complete character. Special mentions to Neil Cross and Neil Gaiman for pushing her along that track. Oh and Steve Thompson.
The Gang
Vastra, Strax and Jenny were a lot better. Strax's humour was back on form after dipping slightly in The Crimson Horror, and Vastra and Jenny were good too. The moment when Jenny declares "I think I've been murdered" was actually shocking - Doctor Who needs more of these moments!
River Song
For me, River was the only slightly dodgy link in the episode. She didn't quite fit in with the tone of it. There were quite a lot of very quick tone changes, laughing one minute, Dr Simeon being threatening the next, but they worked quite well.With River, tiny moments felt out of place. She doesn't fit the show any more. She, ironically, only fits in as a ghost or an echo, not as a complete character. However her purpose in being there, aside from turning up and practically narrating the story annoyingly once or twice, was fulfilled in the ending. She had an ending as a character. I like the fact that the Doctor has, in an almost unspoken way, reached the end of his timeline with River, and it's good they had a proper goodbye. What was better, is that the Doctor's line after his kiss with River actually made me laugh! I was quite surprised. The kiss itself I thought worked - though clearly fans didn't. But then they didn't in 1996 either, so they'll get used to it. It was, to my knowledge, the first proper kiss (not a genetic transfer, random Cassandra kiss, vortex transfer or half-human Doctor/Rose kiss) that the Doctor has actually.. performed since 1996. So I was happy. Strangely.
Dr Simeon and his Whispermen
Were amazing. Richard E Grant was absolutely outstanding, and it was nice to see the Great Intelligence being the ones who want to rewrite the Doctor's life. Out of all the aliens that have encountered him over and over again - it's the Intelligence, who have come up against him on screen three times. I thought that was a nice win for classic fans. I'm glad the Intelligence has been so prominent in the series. The Whispermen worked well, as did their rhyming couplets. I'm not entirely sure why they were there - parts of the Great Intelligence of just undertakers, but they were good. And their entrance in just murdering Jenny was certainly unforgettable.
The Day We Went to Trenzalore
It was incredible. It looked incredible, and the idea of it was incredible as well. The direction in this episode was absolutely superb, and the acting was different to how it normally is, and amazing. It was acted with complete seriousness, which really added an edge to the scenes where the Doctor goes to his grave. Literally. The whole episode was pieced together really well, and it was paced much better than some other episodes. And the sonic screwdriver was barely used!
Overall - this wasn't a perfect Doctor Who episode. It couldn't be. There wasn't enough of a standalone plot, and it was a little bit too reflective to be perfect. But, for what it was, as a look back and tie up things episode - it was perfect. When compared to other Doctor Who episodes this has to be looked at with the whole of Clara and Simeon and River's arcs - so it can't really be judged independently.
Quite clearly though - it was simply awesome.
The series on a whole was good - but come on Moffat - we can do better than this.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)