Film: Noah and The Drop

Noah  *** (out of 4)

Intriguingly watchable throughout, visually and for the story and characters. The world of the far (biblical) past imagined with a suitable level of the fantastic and sense of the mythic/grand/powerful. Russell Crowe strong, convincing; Emma Watson good; Ray Winstone does menacing well. Jennifer Connelly awkwardly overacts at times. Decently well done.


The Drop  *** 1/2 (out of 4)

Saw the world premiere at TIFF, with the cast and director in attendance. Tom Hardy exceptional as Bob, a quiet, seemingly unassuming New York bartender going about his days among gangsters and local street thugs. He rescues a puppy, meets a woman, deftly handles a suspicious cop, and does what needs to be done to keep everything together. James Gandolfini's final role; he's typically very good. Pacing, editing, cinematography slowly, expertly build tension to the climax. Ending is surprising, fitting, satisfying.

Film: A Most Wanted Man and Locke

A Most Wanted Man  *** 1/2 (out of 4)

Philip Seymour Hoffman's last starring role. A meticulous, tense, very finely balanced and written spy thriller. Precision editing and cinematography. Keeps you guessing to the end, along with the characters. Convincing performances by all the leads, with Hoffman captivating in his weariness, distrust, and impatience. The post-9/11 world from behind the scenes, and it's a dour, shifting, confused world.


Locke  *** (out of 4)

Just Tom Hardy as Ivan Locke in a car on a long drive to get to a hospital in London for the birth of a child conceived during a one-night stand. He's trying to do the right thing, he says, as his life (job, family) disintegrates in the course of the drive. Locke proves to be a fascinatingly complex, troubled, coiled-up man. The claustrophobia of the car matches, perhaps, that of his life. Hypnotising.

Favourite Films of 2013

Awfully belated, I know, but this list has been on my mind for a while. It includes films released in 2013, though some I eventually saw on DVD/Blu-Ray in the first few months of this year.

My top 10 films of 2013:

1. Gravity  ****
2. 12 Years a Slave  ****
3. Her ****
4. The Spectacular Now ****
5. Upstream Color *** 1/2
6. Blue is the Warmest Color *** 1/2
7. Le Passé/The Past *** 1/2
8. Jagten/The Hunt  *** 1/2
9. Frances Ha  *** 1/2
10. Fruitvale Station *** 1/2

Honourable Mentions: American Hustle, The Bling Ring, Blue Jasmine, Dallas Buyers Club, The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug, The Invisible Woman, Nebraska, Spring Breakers, To the Wonder

Pleasant Surprises: Don Jon, The Way Way Back

Disappointments: Inside Llewyn Davis, Only God Forgives, Oz the Great and Powerful, The Lone Ranger, Pacific Rim, Thor: The Dark World

Favourite Performance by an Actor: Chiwetel Ejiofor, 12 Years a Slave

Favourite Performance by an Actress: Cate Blanchett, Blue Jasmine

Film: Boyhood

*** 1/2 (out of 4)

On one hand, amazing to watch the actors actually aging over the span of twelve years, particularly Ellar Coltrane, the lead. The transitions as he grows up are seamless and surprising at the same time. On the other hand, a film that steadily, carefully captivates and wins you over. It's a portrait of life, really. Perhaps leaves some storylines oddly undeveloped, but in the end that's of little concern.

Film: Only Lovers Left Alive

*** 1/2 (out of 4)

The vampire film as expression of early 21st-century ennui. A desolate, Gothic, brooding Detroit contrasted by a mazy, softly lit, sensual Tangier. Swinton and Hiddleston captivating as an ultracool, mysterious, devoted, centuries-old couple in love with each other and with human history, art, poetry, music, and retro-technology. Every frame and every shot is stylish, observant, meditative. The blood and fangs are rare, and more effective for being so. It's about the lovers, after all.

Film: Lucy

** 1/2 (out of 4)

Fast, intense, visually striking, entertaining. A good performance by Johansson, with a few captivating moments (especially her call to her mother). Reaches for big questions about human nature, but ultimately feels thin. Ending a little abrupt, with too many narrative threads left dangling.

Favourites of 2011

Without further adieu, my lists of my favourite reads, films, and music of 2011!

Favourite Novels/Books Read in 2011 (Out of 4 Stars)
1. Cloud Atlas (David Mitchell, 2004)  *****
2. Cyberabad Days (Ian McDonald, 2009)  ****
3. Spin (Robert Charles Wilson, 2006)  *** 1/2
4. Embassytown (China Miéville, 2011)  ***
5. Under Heaven (Guy Gavriel Kay, 2010)  ***
6. Filaria (Brent Hayward, 2008)  ***
7. China Mountain Zhang (Maureen F. McHugh, 1992)  ***


Favourite Films Released in 2011 (Out of 4 Stars)
1. Drive  ****
2. Jane Eyre  ****
3. The Descendants  ****
4. Take Shelter  ****
5. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 2  ****
6. Hugo  ****
7. Another Earth  *** 1/2
8. Martha Marcy May Marlene  *** 1/2
9. Midnight in Paris  *** 1/2
10. Rango  *** 1/2

Honourable Mentions: Hanna; Meek's Cutoff; The Whistle Blower.

Notable Disappointments: The Adjustment Bureau; The Ides of March; Melancholia; The Tree of Life.

Read more . . .

Favourites of 2010

This is the Great Post of Lists! Yes, my lists of my favourite reads, films, and music of 2010! Ordered and ranked, no less!

To the listmaking, then . . . .

Favourite Novels/Books Read in 2010 (Out of 4 Stars)
1. The Thousand Autumns of Jacob de Zoet (David Mitchell, 2010)  *****
2. Blue Mars (Kim Stanley Robinson, 1996)  ****

3. Never Let Me Go (Kazuo Ishiguro, 2005)  ****

4. Redemption Ark (Alastair Reynolds, 2002)  ****

5. Autumn Rain Trilogy (David J. Williams): The Mirrored Heavens (2008), The Burning Skies (2009), The Machinery of Light (2010)  *** 1/2

6. Dreaming in Books: The Making of the Bibliographic Imagination in the Romantic Age (Andrew Piper, 2009)  *** 1/2

7. The Windup Girl (Paolo Bacigalupi, 2009)  *** 1/2

8. Absolution Gap (Alastair Reynolds, 2003)  *** 1/2

9. The Hunger Games (Suzanne Collins, 2008)  *** 1/2

10. The City & The City (China Miéville, 2009)  *** 1/2

Honourable Mention: I Am Legend (Richard Matheson, 1954).

Notable Disappointments: Boneshaker (Cherie Priest, 2009); The Quiet War (Paul McAuley, 2009); Wordsworth Translated (John Williams, 2009).

Currently In Progress (i.e., Could Get Finished By the End of the Year and So Might Affect the Above Top 10): Under Heaven (Guy Gavriel Kay, 2010).

Favourite Short Fiction Read in 2010 (Out of 4 Stars)
1. Charles Oberndorf, "Another Life" (2009)  ****
2. Peter Watts, "The Island" (2009)  ****

3. Stephen Baxter, "The Ice Line" (2010)  ****

4. Sarah Genge, "Malick Pan" (2010)  ****

5. Allen M. Steele, "The Jekyll Island Horror" (2010)  ****

6. Geoff Ryman, "Blocked" (2009)  ****

7. John C. Wright, "The Far End of History" (2009)  *** 1/2

8. Mary Robinette Kowal, "The Consciousness Problem" (2009)  *** 1/2

9. Chris Roberson, "Wonder House" (2010)  *** 1/2

10. Carol Emshwiller, "The Wilds" (2010)  *** 1/2

Honourable Mentions: Elizabeth Bear and Sarah Monette, "Boojum" (2008); Stephen Popkes, "Jackie's-Boy" (2010); Michael Swanwick, "Slow Life" (2003); Rachel Swirsky, "Eros, Philia, Agape" (2009); Peter Watts, "The Things" (2010).

Notable Disappointments: Neal Asher, "Shell Game" (2009); Peter M. Ball, "On the Destruction of Copenhagen by the War-Machines of the Merfolk" (2009); Damien Broderick, "Dead Air" (2010); Marissa K. Lingen, "The Calculus Plague" (2009).

Read more . . .

Saving Science Fiction From Itself?

Kristine Kathryn Rusch's essay "Barbarian Confessions," from the book Star Wars on Trial: Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers Debate the Most Popular Science Fiction Films of All Time (eds. David Brin and Matthew Woodring Stover, 2006), is currently available on the Smart Pop Books web site, but only for a limited time (until March 5th, apparently). I was originally linked to it from SF Signal.

        John DeNardo of SF Signal terms Rusch's essay "controversial," which certainly encouraged me to read it. The controversy, I suspect, stems from Rusch's diagnosis of the condition of SF and her recommendations for how the genre can heal and remain healthy.

        The basic aim of this diagnosis involves a defense of tie-in novel series (i.e., for Star Trek or Star Wars, and the like), which is the sort of SF generally looked down upon by what Rusch calls "the Science Fiction Village," yet also the sort of SF that sells well, takes up its share of "shelf space," and -- most importantly, for Rusch -- entertains its readers. (Rusch herself has written several tie-in novels.) SF, Rusch argues, has strayed from and actively resists what makes Star Wars great: "an escape, a journey into a new yet familiar world, entertainment. A good read." Such resistance to "entertainment" began with the New Wave, the result being the predominance of "dystopian universes," "nasty ... world-building," and "insularity," along with the abandonment of "gosh-wow, sense-of-wonder stories." Therefore, according to Rusch, the prescription for SF is "more grand adventure, more heroes on journeys, more uplifting ... endings": the very stories offered by tie-in novels, which Rusch claims are "keeping SF alive."

        For me, Rusch's essay proves especially relevant with regard to James Cameron's film Avatar, particularly a strain of negative response to the film within the SF&F community. I wish to address this negative response to Avatar by comparing it to the consistently positive response to Duncan Jones' Moon, where Avatar represents SF-as-entertainment and Moon SF-as-"work" (Rusch's term). I am fascinated by and deeply appreciate both films for what they do as films and as SF. Yet, echoing Rusch, I believe Avatar will do more than Moon to keep SF alive as a thriving and relevant genre. In fact, Avatar is the kind of film (and possible novel tie-in) that can save SF from itself.

Read more . . .

On Story and Avatar

• Thoughts on Avatar
• Further Thoughts on Avatar

[WARNING: POSSIBLE SPOILERS]

Back to Avatar again, this time to offer some thoughts on its story and its script, particularly because I keep seeing the same comment(s) about the film with unfortunate regularity.

     For an example, I quote Ken of Neth Space:

The story is terribly cliché, predictable, heavy-handed, and quite hypocritical coming from Hollywood. And it's a great movie. ... The presentation is spectacular ....

This passage effectively sums up the general response to Avatar across much of the SF&F blogosphere, and from people with whom I've discussed the film. At this point, the response itself is becoming clichéd and predictable. I see two consequences: first, the perpetuation of a misconception about Avatar's story; second, an unwillingness to engage with that story on its own terms and to consider why Cameron made specific choices.

     To see a review that does engage with the story and consider Cameron's choices, I recommend Roz Kaveney's piece at Strange Horizons. It is the most thorough and astute commentary on the film I have read yet.

     I want to suggest something about Avatar's story that might initially seem a bit addled to some: namely, that its supposed clichés and predictability in fact constitute its great strength and the source of its emotional power -- and that Cameron did this on purpose.

Read more . . .

2009 Books Read and Films Seen

Now that it's a new year, I need to clear the slate for my reading and film lists, but I wanted to ensure that both lists did not just dissolve away into cyberspace never to be seen again (by me, at least).

My "best of" lists for 2009 readings and films are here.

Read more . . .

Favourites of 2009

Inspired by SF Signal's recent Mind Meld posts on the "best genre-related books/films/shows consumed in 2009," I thought I might give my Top 10 lists for SF&F novels and short stories read this year (for the first time) -- seeing as most of what I read was originally published before 2009. Then, I'll throw in a list for films.

Favourite SF&F Novels Read in 2009 (Out of 4 Stars)
1. Watchmen (Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons, 1986)  *****
2. Red Mars (Kim Stanley Robinson, 1992)  ****
3. Blindsight (Peter Watts, 2006)  ****
4. Anathem (Neal Stephenson, 2008)  ****
5. Green Mars (Kim Stanley Robinson, 1994)  ****
6. River of Gods (Ian McDonald, 2004)  ****
7. Revelation Space (Alastair Reynolds, 2000)  *** 1/2
8. The Last Unicorn (Peter S. Beagle, 1968)  *** 1/2
9. Chasm City (Alastair Reynolds, 2001)  ***
10. Darwin's Radio (Greg Bear, 1999)  ***

Most Disappointing: Calculating God (Robert J. Sawyer, 2000); Hominids (Robert J. Sawyer, 2003); Consider Phlebas (Iain M. Banks, 1987).

Read more . . .

Further Thoughts on Avatar (dir. James Cameron, 2009)

Some further reviews and commentaries on Avatar:
• Nick Mamatas (a silly rant, interesting for the level and bile of its silliness)
• 'Avatar' and the War of Genres (Gerry Canavan)
• When Will White People Stop Making Movies Like "Avatar"? (Annalee Newitz @ io9)
• The Blue Future of Video Games (Stephen Totilo @ Kotaku)
• Intentions be damned, Avatar is racist (SEK @ Acephalous)
• John Scalzi on the most memorable SF films of 2009
• The Wertzone
• SF Signal (Scott Shaffer)
• Locus (Gary Westfahl)
• Speculative Horizons

     I wrote in my other post on Avatar that Art functions to challenge and potentially change how we see our world and ourselves, relating this idea to what I think constitutes the central theme of the film: to see differently, to perceive in a new way.

     One clear sign that a work of Art has succeeded in this function can be found in the multiplicity of readings, arguments, critiques, reactions, and emotions generated by the film. With Avatar, the variety and even vehemence of readings of the film are proving most important in this respect. If anything, the film is at least inspiring discussion and debate -- not just about whether it's awesome or sucks, but for its politics and sociocultural meanings.

     More specifically, I suggest that a significant part of the film's success resides in its openness to multiple, various interpretations . . . as well as in the way it exposes, or reflects back, the reductiveness or overdetermination or oversimplification of some of those interpretations. Put in a slightly different way, Avatar, I think, is quickly becoming an excellent example of how people will see in a work of Art what they want, need, desire to see, thereby closing themselves off from, blinding themselves to, or outright distrusting the wider, more universal meanings at play in the film. In other words, Avatar appears to be generating both insightful commentary and misprisions (i.e., willfull misreadings).

     A common critique of Avatar claims that the story is clichéd, conventional, too simple, unoriginal, boring, vapid, and so on. The standard question goes, "With all the investment in technology and making the film look great, why couldn't Cameron develop a better, more intelligent story?" By extension, the critique of the story involves charges that the script is poor, the dialogue being awkward and overly obvious and "cringe worthy."

     On one hand, such a critique assumes (and discounts) that Cameron did not make careful, purposeful choices regarding the plot, characters, setting, and key incidents; on the other hand, such a critique also reveals an inattentiveness to the role of the dialogue in the film, which is to establish and forward plot, character, setting, and incident.

Read more . . .

Thoughts on Avatar (dir. James Cameron, 2009)

Beauty is truth, truth beauty, -- that is all

Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.

– John Keats, "Ode on a Grecian Urn"

True Wit is Nature to Advantage drest,

What oft was Thought, but ne'er so well Exprest,
Something, whose Truth convinc'd at Sight we find,
That gives us back the Image of our Mind ....
– Alexander Pope, An Essay on Criticism

One of the basic functions of Art is to challenge us to see our world and ourselves in new ways, to perceive and look at Life differently.

To see in new ways, to perceive differently: this, we might say, is the raison d'être of science fiction, a genre/mode/tradition that relies upon the estranging and unfamiliar as a means by which to comment upon now, upon today.

Of all modern art forms, film most powerfully and concretely has the ability to change how we see our world and ourselves, to put before us the estranging and unfamiliar, thereby introducing us to new worlds whether they be of the past or the present or the future, another country or culture, other lives outside of or unknown to us.

Avatar does all of this, as a work of Art, of science fiction, of film -- on an epic, sublime, and breathtaking scale.

It seeks nothing less than to remind us of the stunning, heartbreaking beauty of Earth, a beauty that we must value as more than a mere commodity. It aims unabashedly to alter how we see Earth by giving us Pandora, a world so magnificently surprising and colourful and alive that it asks us to be swept away by and utterly immersed in the beauty of its newness . . . asks us to care for it and protect it from ourselves.

Read more . . .

Battlestar Galactica: Riding Off Into the Sunrise

*WARNING: POSSIBLE SPOILERS*

Battlestar Galactica (BSG) came to a close last night (Friday, 20 March 2009). Such a fitting close, I think -- for all of its resolutions, for all it left us to ponder about the show and about ourselves.

Very quickly, of course, opinions are divided about what happened in the finale. People are unhappy or unsatisfied with some things, even angry or disappointed or feeling betrayed. People are questioning the logic and plausibility and appropriateness of what happened to some of the characters. I’ve even seen comments already claiming that the ending has ruined the entire series for them, that the finale’s second half in particular didn’t fit with the series and its mood and all that it promised.

To all of these criticisms, I would say that perhaps having some trust in Ronald D. Moore and the show’s producers and writers to finish BSG on their terms should be our starting point. We do get personally invested in shows such as BSG; they can become a source of meaning and inspiration for us. Such personal investment, however, often leads to a kind of need to criticise and dismiss a show when it doesn’t satisfy our picture of what it should or should not do. This is not, I think, the position from which to assess the finale or BSG as a series.

On that note, here are my thoughts on what I saw and what I took from the finale.

Read more . . .

Musings on Watchmen, the Film

*WARNING: POSSIBLE SPOILERS*

This entry will possibly be a bit desultory. Nonetheless, I feel the need to get some thoughts on having seen Watchmen into words, into some measure of coherence. Powerful art can do this to a person.

First off, I admit that I have not read the graphic novel. Thus, I went into the film not knowing the story, not carrying any preconceptions or prejudices about what I wanted the film to do nor not to do. (Apparently, there’s some debate about the film’s ending, which is different from the graphic novel’s.) It simply looked like a great, very intriguing film; I’m always up for the latest comic book film adaptation (at least, good film adaptations); and I enjoyed Zack Snyder’s 300 quite a lot, so I wanted to see what he would do with an even bigger canvas. Then I read Roger Ebert’s 4-star review, and I knew I was seeing this film no matter what.

At the conclusion of his review, Ebert writes, “I’m not sure I understood all the nuances and implications, but I am sure I had a powerful experience. … it’s going to inspire fevered analysis. I don’t want to see it again for that reason, however, but mostly just to have the experience again.” This basically sums up my reaction to Watchmen, though of course there’s more to it. Film, I think, can give one an “experience” like no other art -- visual, aural, physical, intellectual, aesthetic. Bruno Bettelheim has written, “the art of the moving picture is the only art truly of our time, whether it is in the form of film or television.” As much as I love literature, film does something unique in its bringing together of so many technologies to tell stories, to give us an “experience.”

Read more . . .