This video is full of awesomeness
Of course, you will have to have a passing appreciation of both Star Wars and Star Trek to get the awesomeness… but it’s still remarkably clever editing, even if you don’t!
Iron Man
I’ve seen Iron Man, finally.
And it was brilliant, as I’d heard. I know nothing about the comics, so obviously I can’t comment on its authenticity. But the opening – how he gets the idea, creates it – very clever! Ridiculous, but clever. Tony Stark is one hilarious hero, and hugely enjoyable to watch. I hadn’t expected Robert Downey Jr to be nearly as good as he was! Infinitely watchable. I had expected Gwyneth Paltrow to be a bit painful, but actually I thought she fit the character quite nicely.
The story was interesting enough, without trying to be too ambitious, which I think can sometimes be a failing in films that really, should be all about the action. (OK, I don’t really mean that, but I think directors do sometimes forget that there are lots of us who are happy with good solid stories, and lots of action, and don’t need more convolutions than The Wheel of Time.) There were a couple of points where I was surprised, which is really all I ask for!
The effects were also brilliant.
On the Beach
I’ve finally got around to watching it: the Gregory Peck version.
The opening credits have a delightful orchestral theme. It took me a while to realise it was Waltzing Matilda. It continues as a theme throughout the whole flick, which gets a bit distracting for those of us who know the words.
It’s the most glorious black and white. Colour doesn’t allow for the lovely use of shadow that b&w does, or contrasts; I’ve seen a coloured version of Casablanca and it just doesn’t have the same mood.
It’s set in Melbourne! There’s the Post Office!
I adore Peck. That voice!
Filmed in 1959; there’s a dramatic moment when the calendar reveals that it’s 1964. Dum dum dum.
This is quite a different post-apocalyptic film from what we have tended to get more recently. It’s a peculiarly old-fashioned view of the apocalypse: no anarchy. It’s complicated – in its relationships, its view of causes – and it likes being complicated. It also likes thinking about the causes, which perhaps results from its Cold War origins.
It’s also a lot more forthright than I was expecting, perhaps because it’s based on an Australian book? Example: Lt and wife having a kiss near the beach, stranger walks past and says “Give ‘er what for, mate.” The Lt just waves.
Also: no petrol. Lots of bikes! And horse-drawn buggies.
Ah yes… blame the scientists… there’s even a hint of blaming computers. Fred Astaire is not, so far, as bad as I had feared. Ava Gardner is good; Donna Anderson is marvelous, as the somewhat naive, innocent young wife. Anthony Perkins is utterly fabulous as the young Lt.
My darling has always said we should move to the east coast of NZ’s south island, because the prevailing currents and winds would make it the safest place in the event of a nuclear disaster.
Oh, I really think I’ll have to read this. I’ve never read any Shute; A Town like Alice is really not my thing; this, on the other hand, is right up my alley.
Eagle Eye
We saw it today. It was a lot better than I expected, to be honest.
Shia is pretty crap. The chick was ok. Billy Bob Thornton is great.
I love the plane-in-the-tunnel trick.
I really wasn’t expecting what this turned out to be, but it made sense (you know, in context, where “making sense” is associated with “utter suspension of belief”).
Lots of explosions! And car chases! And scenes where I couldn’t really follow who was where!
I enjoyed it a lot.
Two utterly different movies
1. Aeon Flux. I love this movie. I love the look, I love Theron, I love Csokas… it’s just wonderful. I’ve never seen the animated series and from the stills I don’t want to. For me, this movie exists in glorious isolation. Yes, there are vague resonances with cloning issues today (and it could be interesting to draw parallels between it and Children of Men), but they’re not important for my enjoyment of the film. It’s just cool, and it remains so – this must be the third time I’ve seen it, and I could probably rewatch it every year or so.
2. Dukes of Hazzard. One that, frankly, I thought I would never bother to watch, but it was just sitting there, and J convinced me we should give it a go. So, OK, it’s hilarious in spots. And there’s not quite as much of Jessica Simpson’s boobs as I had expected. The car chases are fun to watch; Luke and Bo are an enjoyable duo, and it’s played well by Scott and Knoxville. Boss Hogg could have been a bit more evil, I thought – he wasn’t quite as hateful as I anticipated. And heck, who doesn’t like a spot of Willie Nelson being a moonshine-swilling, Korean War vet? So it was entirely appropriate fun for a Saturday night.
Further consideration of the 32
Yesterday I blogged about this list of 32 recommended SF novels. I mentioned at the time I wasn’t sure how much store to set by the compiler. Last night, as I considered the list further, I realised there are some serious flaws.
Firstly, the things I think are good about the list:
- There were a few books, and some authors, I hadn’t heard of. They might actually be crap, but it’s cool to have new people suggested – and not to have lists dominated by the same old people. Now, perhaps I’m just not entirely up with my SF classics, and these are all people I ‘should’ have heard of – but I don’t, so it works for me.
- It covers a good range of time – from Mary Shelley through Jules Verne and HG Wells, up to Cory Doctorow and Richard Morgan. It’s useful to see the history of SF reflected in a list like this, and presumably shows the compiler has a good understanding of the range of SF over time.
- There’s a variety in types of SF. That is, you’ve got your loony Douglas Adams, the slightly farcical Michael Crichton’s Timeline, through to the more serious, epic-like works such as those of Frank Herbert and Robert Heinlein, as well the cyperpunk of William Gibson. It’s good to see this range reflected, too – because SF is no monolithic structure.
However, there are obviously some problems with the list. Now, this just may reflect the compiler’s reading taste, but it’s still interesting – I hope – to offer a critique.
- Firstly, I’m not sure all of the works mentioned count as SF. Animal Farm, basically. Not convinced.
- By my count, only Lois Lowry and Mary Shelley rate a mention to represent female publishing. What happened to Ursula le Guin, and Left Hand of Darkness? Perhaps the compiler hasn’t read it, but if they claim to be making a somewhat-authoritative list, she’s a fairly glaring omission. Octavia Butler (of whom I’ve only read short stories), Nancy Kress… I could go on. It’s the main thing I’ve got a beef about, actually.
- One, by my count, young-adult book (the Lowry, which again I haven’t read). Now, perhaps again this reflects the compiler’s reading habits – came to SF as an adult? – but there are some truly awesome YA scifi books out there. Madeline l’Engels’ Wrinkle in Time, for starters… and a lot more I won’t bother to list.
- Clarke’s 2001 only rates a little mention at the end??
- There shouldn’t be more than one book by any one author, I think. Fair enough to say “this is representative of the author, see also…” but I think that padding the list with multiple entires from one author is laziness, or the compiler isn’t as well-read as it might seem… or they really wanted it to be 32 books in the list and didn’t think anything else rated.
- Finally, as a list of recommendations, it bugs me a little that it’s got only quotes from Amazon (and Wikipedia). Does this mean the compiler hasn’t actually read them, or doesn’t trust their writing/reviewing skills, or thinks people want something more ‘objective’ than a more personal opinion would seem?
Anyway, those are my thoughts. I will still try to read some of the things of the list, despite my reservations about the list as a whole – because even given those, there are still some books that I know are good and interesting, and this has in some ways simply jogged my memory, as well as giving me some others to consider.
32 SF novels
This is the list. I actually don’t know the blog, so I don’t know if I have to beat myself up over having only read 10 of them… at least a number of the others are on my list!! And that’s one reason why I’ve got the link here, to be honest – to keep it in my head.
Lists are interesting things. Very interesting. Cos… 32? Really? I wonder why the author didn’t just make it 38 and add the honorable mentions? Anyway. Yet more books to add to the list.
Internet Review of SF
So I decided to become a casual subscriber to the Interenet Review of Science Fiction. I am increasingly becoming interested in reading scifi crit and essays, so it will be interesting to see if this fulfills its task in my life.
If it does, I fully intend to become a paying subscriber. Heck, they promise public recognition – and goodies! I wonder if that applies to non-US residents…
Fruitless Recursion
So this new online journal could be interesting: criticism and non-fiction relating to SF/F/Horror. They’ve currently got Issue 0 up – a couple of reviews – I guess to get some interest happening. They’re also a paying market, for reviews/interviews etc. So potentially this could be a very, very interesting space to watch, if SFF is your thing and you like to critique your genre and watch other people do it too.
I’m cautiously excited.
They don’t sound too optimistic in their title, though, do they?
Randomly Yours, Alex 