So, here we are, firmly into 2018, with a couple of blog posts already done and more to come. This is a good start, for me, anyway!
The aim this year is to post more frequently and more regularly, adding book, film, game and music reviews, with retrospectives in those areas as well branch out with a couple of side projects that I'll cover when they get underway. What I can say is that I am looking forward to those and hope you enjoy them too when they come to fruition.
In addition to the above, there should be the usual wargames shows that I hope to attend. Those will be Vapnartak (York - 4th February), Salute (London - 14th April), Carronade (Falkirk - 12th May), Partizan (Newark - 29th May), Durham - date TBC, Claymore (Edinburgh - 5th August) and 2nd Partizan (Newark - 19th August). I hope to add posts about these shows as they happen but that all depends on how much time I have at each. I may try to get to one or two others but that will be at the mercy of spare time.
Of course, alongside the shows, there will be the semi-regular TWATS meetings, details of which will be (semi-)honestly reported (depending on how I do) here as well ;-) I know there is Shinyloo to come first but after that, it's all a mystery - in other words, we decide at the end of one meeting what the next one will be. However, as always, there will be fine ale and victuals on hand. It's not just about the dice rolling - seriously. I would add intellectual conversation, but that could be stretching it a bit - funny, near the knuckle and interesting, but intellectual? Hmmm...
With that, I hope 2018 is a good year for you all and you enjoy reading this blog as much as I enjoy writing it.
Wednesday, 10 January 2018
Monday, 8 January 2018
A Brace of Phantoms - Book Reviews
I have been a military history buff since I was a child and of all of the periods I have read about, the post World War 2 period is the one that fascinates me the most. True, there are other periods that interest me and I do have an eclectic library but 1945 onwards is my favourite. Recently, I have finished two books in what I call the "Boys" range. This range of titles has covered the Lighting, Jaguar, Buccaneer, Hunter, Vulcan, Victor, Canberra, Meteor, Javelin, Tornado and the V-Force, but for this post, I'll be covering the two volumes printed about the Phantom.
The usual format for the series is that the author acts as a bridge between stories told in the first person by those who flew, operated and worked with each title's selected aircraft. I like this format as although general history books can be good, nothing beats the personal experiences written down by those who were there, no matter what period of history you cover, and in that respect, volume one is very good. The tales are interesting and really do give you an idea as to how effective the so-called high technology of the day actually was (i.e. not very at times - makes you wonder that if the balloon did go up, the winner would have been the man with the last piece of working tech!). As with previous titles, you learn far more about the aircraft and those who flew and fought with them than any technical work and it is fascinating.
However, there is a but here. Whilst volume two continues the interesting tales, the presentation is far different. Rather than first person, the author, Richard Pike, presents each tale in the third person, adding verbose and flowery writing which pads out the book to no real effect. It feels like he is auditioning for a career in fiction rather than presenting the stories of those whose careers featured the Phantom. The style detracts from the feel and at times makes reading the book a chore. The individual tales are worth a read, it's just the telling that doesn't gel.
Overall though, if you have an interest in late 20th Century military aviation, these are worth a read, as are the rest of the "Boys" series, just beware the style. I am currently reading Meteor Boys and will post a review when it's finished.
Saturday, 6 January 2018
A Pair of Films
During the Christmas period, I caught up with a couple of films that had been added to Netflix, one that carried a fair bit of expectation and the other that quietly arrived with little fuss (and was all the better for it).
First up, Bright. Starring Will Smith and Joel Edgerton, Bright posits an alternate world where Elves (upper class), Humans (Middle Class) and Orcs (Lower Class) live together. All is not well, as the heavy handed social commentary would have it and it is with this background that Edgerton plays the first Orc police officer in Los Angeles. Cue the usual mistrust, racism and bigotry. Add to that magic users and you have a smorgasbord of story tropes to fill two hours.
Now I will say that this film has been panned by critics, some labelling it the worst film 2017. That, it is not, in my humble opinion. True, it's not high art, but then it was never meant to be. What it is, however, is a cracking popcorn movie that will do for an evening's entertainment. The story moves at a good pace and the $90 million budget looks well spent on effects (and probably Smith's fee). Acting is average to good. Smith seems to be relying upon the same schtick that has carried him since Independence Day (except a bit more sweary - even with the early morning scene introducing the character), and whilst this is seems as effortless as always, it does feel a little lazy. Edgerton is superb, despite the hindrance of prosthetic make up. He carries the sense of newcomer and outsider well, adding an honour that is missing from much of the human cast. Noomi Rapace is decent but wasted as the Evil of the story, and although she doesn't phone her performance in, the script doesn't give her much to work with. Overall though, it's an entertaining movie that, if you have Netflix, you should give it a go.
Bright, as noted above, has taken a lot of flack and part of that will be down to the nature of its release. No cinema showings for this one as Bright is the start of Netflix's plans to take on movie studios and deliver more of its own content rather than rely upon buying rights to others - an example being the Marvel Cinematic Universe films that Disney have taken back off Netflix in order to launch their own streaming service. As such, Bright is very much a tent-pole release and one that has a lot riding on it. Given a sequel has bee green-lit, we can presume that, despite the critical response, the viewer response has been good enough.
The Foreigner, starring Jackie Chan and Pierce Brosnan, is more of a thriller, telling the story of a Chinese businessman whose daughter is killed by a renegade Irish terrorist attack. What follows is his attempt to find out who committed the attacks and the revenge he seeks.
The film has had quite a decent international cinema release but not in the UK. On a $35 million budget it took $140 million so it was a success. For a UK release though, it's been handled by Netflix which is a shame as it deserves a wider audience.
Chan plays pretty much against type as a 61 year old (which he was at the time of filming) and really gets to show his acting skills. There is a tangible sense of grief and anger as he slowly follows the trail to those who killed his daughter. There are a few fight scenes, and boy, does he get his arse kicked at times, but his character's background is explained well and doesn't take away any of the story. The film also proves that even in his sixties, Chan still can move about.
Pierce Brosnan plays the Northern Ireland Assembly Deputy Leader who previously led the IRA and renounced violence for a political solution - or did he? No plot spoilers but there is enough meat on the story to keep you entertained, even if Brosnan's Northern Irish accent does slip every now and again. The supporting cast are all good and the film ramps up the tension, particularly in the last half hour, to a conclusion that gives a fitting pay-off to all concerned.
If you do have Netflix or can get a free trial, I would certainly recommend The Foreigner.
First up, Bright. Starring Will Smith and Joel Edgerton, Bright posits an alternate world where Elves (upper class), Humans (Middle Class) and Orcs (Lower Class) live together. All is not well, as the heavy handed social commentary would have it and it is with this background that Edgerton plays the first Orc police officer in Los Angeles. Cue the usual mistrust, racism and bigotry. Add to that magic users and you have a smorgasbord of story tropes to fill two hours.
Now I will say that this film has been panned by critics, some labelling it the worst film 2017. That, it is not, in my humble opinion. True, it's not high art, but then it was never meant to be. What it is, however, is a cracking popcorn movie that will do for an evening's entertainment. The story moves at a good pace and the $90 million budget looks well spent on effects (and probably Smith's fee). Acting is average to good. Smith seems to be relying upon the same schtick that has carried him since Independence Day (except a bit more sweary - even with the early morning scene introducing the character), and whilst this is seems as effortless as always, it does feel a little lazy. Edgerton is superb, despite the hindrance of prosthetic make up. He carries the sense of newcomer and outsider well, adding an honour that is missing from much of the human cast. Noomi Rapace is decent but wasted as the Evil of the story, and although she doesn't phone her performance in, the script doesn't give her much to work with. Overall though, it's an entertaining movie that, if you have Netflix, you should give it a go.
Bright, as noted above, has taken a lot of flack and part of that will be down to the nature of its release. No cinema showings for this one as Bright is the start of Netflix's plans to take on movie studios and deliver more of its own content rather than rely upon buying rights to others - an example being the Marvel Cinematic Universe films that Disney have taken back off Netflix in order to launch their own streaming service. As such, Bright is very much a tent-pole release and one that has a lot riding on it. Given a sequel has bee green-lit, we can presume that, despite the critical response, the viewer response has been good enough.
The Foreigner, starring Jackie Chan and Pierce Brosnan, is more of a thriller, telling the story of a Chinese businessman whose daughter is killed by a renegade Irish terrorist attack. What follows is his attempt to find out who committed the attacks and the revenge he seeks.
The film has had quite a decent international cinema release but not in the UK. On a $35 million budget it took $140 million so it was a success. For a UK release though, it's been handled by Netflix which is a shame as it deserves a wider audience.
Chan plays pretty much against type as a 61 year old (which he was at the time of filming) and really gets to show his acting skills. There is a tangible sense of grief and anger as he slowly follows the trail to those who killed his daughter. There are a few fight scenes, and boy, does he get his arse kicked at times, but his character's background is explained well and doesn't take away any of the story. The film also proves that even in his sixties, Chan still can move about.
Pierce Brosnan plays the Northern Ireland Assembly Deputy Leader who previously led the IRA and renounced violence for a political solution - or did he? No plot spoilers but there is enough meat on the story to keep you entertained, even if Brosnan's Northern Irish accent does slip every now and again. The supporting cast are all good and the film ramps up the tension, particularly in the last half hour, to a conclusion that gives a fitting pay-off to all concerned.
If you do have Netflix or can get a free trial, I would certainly recommend The Foreigner.
Wednesday, 3 January 2018
Star-Raker - A Book Review
Happy New Year, one and all, and welcome back to TIT! I hope you all had a good festive season.
I managed to catch up with some reading and films over Christmas and the New Year, so there'll be a couple of posts coming up about those but for today, I'll be posting a review for Star-Raker by Donald Gordon.
Some of you may recall Gordon's novel, Flight of the Bat which I reviewed last year here. I liked that novel so was looking forward to reading a previous book. It's not a substantial read, I read it over the course of an afternoon, but it was, overall, rather enjoyable in a lightweight way.
Detailing the prototype flights of a revolutionary British supersonic airliner, it promises both drama and technical accuracy when pilots testing the aircraft start to develop cancer, threatening not only the future of the programme but also the company building the plane.
It is very much a piece of its time (1962) and it takes no imagination whatsoever to see how this could have been filmed in that very clipped, emotionally straight-jacketed British cinema style of the time. It makes the characters feel, if not lifeless, then at least somewhere on the spectrum. Even death brings very little emotional response apart from sniffles into a hanky and a turn of the head.
The story itself moves at a rollicking pace and the sub-plot about politics and the Ministry add a depth that is certainly required. It does tie in nicely and whilst the science of the danger posed by the new aircraft (no spoilers though) is suspect, it's a MacGuffin that serves its purpose well even if, in the final pages, it is used to physically disable a main character is a stupid and pointless manner. (Don't worry, that event is signposted earlier on so you know it's going to happen!).
Still, it's worth a read and won't take up too much of your time. Of the two books of Gordon's I have read, I still much prefer Flight of the Bat.
Speaking of the author, whose full name is Donald Gordon Payne, I must make an apology, in that Star-Raker was his fifth novel, not second. Whoops. He enjoyed later success in having one novel optioned by Disney which was later made into "The Island at the Top of the World"and according to the Wikipedia entry for him, the gentleman celebrates his 93rd birthday today.
Many happy returns, Mr Payne, thank you for two (as read so far), entertaining novels!
I managed to catch up with some reading and films over Christmas and the New Year, so there'll be a couple of posts coming up about those but for today, I'll be posting a review for Star-Raker by Donald Gordon.
 |
| 3'6, a bargain??? |
 |
| Bring on the hyperbole!!! :-) |
Detailing the prototype flights of a revolutionary British supersonic airliner, it promises both drama and technical accuracy when pilots testing the aircraft start to develop cancer, threatening not only the future of the programme but also the company building the plane.
It is very much a piece of its time (1962) and it takes no imagination whatsoever to see how this could have been filmed in that very clipped, emotionally straight-jacketed British cinema style of the time. It makes the characters feel, if not lifeless, then at least somewhere on the spectrum. Even death brings very little emotional response apart from sniffles into a hanky and a turn of the head.
The story itself moves at a rollicking pace and the sub-plot about politics and the Ministry add a depth that is certainly required. It does tie in nicely and whilst the science of the danger posed by the new aircraft (no spoilers though) is suspect, it's a MacGuffin that serves its purpose well even if, in the final pages, it is used to physically disable a main character is a stupid and pointless manner. (Don't worry, that event is signposted earlier on so you know it's going to happen!).
Still, it's worth a read and won't take up too much of your time. Of the two books of Gordon's I have read, I still much prefer Flight of the Bat.
Speaking of the author, whose full name is Donald Gordon Payne, I must make an apology, in that Star-Raker was his fifth novel, not second. Whoops. He enjoyed later success in having one novel optioned by Disney which was later made into "The Island at the Top of the World"and according to the Wikipedia entry for him, the gentleman celebrates his 93rd birthday today.
Many happy returns, Mr Payne, thank you for two (as read so far), entertaining novels!
Friday, 15 December 2017
2017 - A Year in Film
The final review of the year post, this one focuses on film, notably those which were released in 2017, so sadly The Man from UNCLE won't get anything other than a mention here. What I will add to each film, where possible, are the production budgets and total film gross to date in millions of dollars - some are still on release so the totals may not be final - (figures courtesy of BoxOfficeMojo.com). This will give you an idea of how successful the film has been at the box office alongside my opinion. As a rough guide, if a film takes 3.5 times its production budget at the box office, then it can be considered a profitable success. That is not a hard and fast rule but it's the simplest way that kind of works. Also, most of these films were seen at the local independent cinema. They show 3D films for £8, a standard 2D is £6.30 and Tuesdays are £4 cheap days (prices as of Nov 2017). I'd rather support a local independent that frankly money grabbing national chains where possible. That's just me, no criticism of what you prefer intended.
So, onto the films. Let's start off with the Marvel Cinematic Universe which saw three films released this year: Guardians of the Galaxy 2 ($200/$863.5), Spiderman: Homecoming ($175/$880.1) and Thor: Ragnarok ($180/$834.9). These mark the 15th, 16th and 17th films in the MCU respectively and continue the high quality, entertaining blockbusters that the series has come to epitomise. Whilst each is tonally different, they fall neatly into the MCU and develop their characters in meaningful ways at the same time as being enjoyable standalone films in their own right.
Guardians 2 had the difficult task of following the original, one of the true break-out hits of the MCU. That it did, even though it did feel a little too similar, but more of the same is good, right? Well, yeah, and the core story, Peter Quinn's meeting his father, was handled well (plus an excellent cameo), but there were signs of them coasting a bit (can we take much more Baby Groot?). Still, this was well made and fun. It did tease the nostalgia buds for the 1980's (as did Stranger Things 2) but I hope it moves past that in Guardians 3.
Spiderman: Homecoming was the dark horse of the MCU this year, the first full Spiderman film from Marvel (Captain America: Civil War doesn't count, that was a teaser). And boy, didn't they do well! Part of it was casting, Tom Holland nails Peter Parker and Michael Keaton as the villain was superb. There was humour, pathos, and a coming of age story that didn't feel forced. I, for one, was pleased Sony Pictures teamed up with Marvel for this and I wouldn't feel any sadness of it stayed that way. The original Toby Maguire trilogy started well and ended in a confused mess. The Andrew Garfield pair were just a mess. Maybe there is a brighter future here...
Thor: Ragnarok, the third standalone Thor film, marked a return to form after the po-faced Thor: The Dark World. There was colour, humour, excitement (calm down, Eddie!) and Cate Blanchett (seriously, dude!). The direction by Taika Waititi was light and assured, his turn as Korg is a highlight of the film. This was a serious and fun film at the same time and provided a buddy comedy act between Chris Hemsworth and Mark Ruffalo as Thor and Bruce Banner/The Hulk respectively leaving me with a smile on my face when I left the cinema.
A big surprise, and one of my favourite films of the year was Wonder Woman ($149/$821.7). A DC universe film, Wonder Woman broke the mould set by previous DC universe films and wasn't a dull, dark CGI mess - well, apart from the CGI fist fight at the end, but that's a superhero film issue in general. With a great central character and a decent story, Patty Jenkins delivered the shot in the arm that the DC series needed. Justice League ($300 rumoured/$617(!!!) went back to the original dark template and hasn't been anywhere as successful. I haven't seen that yet, probably will next week, but the League haven't done the series any favours.
Two big tent pole features have already received a kicking from me here, The Mummy ($125/$409) and Transformers: The Last Knight ($217/$605.4). The Mummy was such a disappointment that the two planned follow up movies for the Dark Universe series have both had their release dates removed from future schedules which does not bode well. Transformers: The Last Knight was a bomb and a half and whilst the lower budget Bumblebee spin off is due next year, the soft re-boot that the Last Knight heralded has put the series future in doubt.
Not all big-budget blockbusters had a tough time, The Fate and the Furious ($250/$1,235.7) - the 8th of the series, signalled a further move away from the illegal street racing of the first few films and more to an international espionage ensemble. Sometimes, you need a big, dumb popcorn movie to just relax with and FF8 was that film. It was not without its faults (Vin Diesel is po-faced to the extreme and the stunts are getting more and more outlandish), but with an cracking on-screen chemistry between Dwayne Johnson and Jason Statham and the latter's brilliant solo fight scene on the aircraft with a baby in tow, FF8 stayed just inside the line without veering into panto.
Speaking of panto and gormless idiocy, both Geostorm ($120/$207.6) and Baywatch ($69/$177) were forgettable. There was enough scene chewing in both that it overtook the end of the world CGI-fest in Geostorm and the by-the-numbers "comedy" of Baywatch. I would say that neither are worth your time.
The only animated film I saw this year was The LEGO Batman Movie ($80/$311.5). Smart, funny, self-aware and with of the best on-screen Batman's ever, the film hit all of the right notes. Filled with easter eggs and cameos, this film knew its audience and played to them with style.
There were more sequels this year, with T2: Trainspotting ($18/$41.6), a nostalgic look at the original that didn't seem to say anything new, even with twenty years separating them and John Wick: Chapter Two ($40/$171.5), a follow up that took everything that was good about the first film and turned it up to 11 whilst also progressing the character's story arc and setting up a third film. This is a series that deserves that film.
Staying with action and adding comedy, The Hitman's Bodyguard ($30/$176.5), was a mis-matched buddy film that worked better than I expected and was quite the gem. Yes, it was a relatively low budget feature but that was more of a help than a hindrance.
Dunkirk ($100/$525), a snapshot of the evacuation covering three characters over the period of 1 week, 1 day and 1 hour, their stories intertwined until they sync by the end, was a clever and well made film that, despite its good points, left me quite cold. True, the film feels empty anyway, you never feel that there are hundreds of thousands of troops trying to get home, but there is an emotional emptiness that gives the film a coldness that prevents me from liking it more.
Another film that left me cold was The Death of Stalin ($?/$6.6). Written and directed by Armando Iannucci (creator of The Thick of It, In the Loop and Veep), I expected more of this political comedy, but it fell flat for me, even if it was clever, observant and complex. In fact, the only high points (and only because the actors were allowed to use their own or own choice of accents) is when Jason Isaacs arrives on screen as General Zhukov - his Yorkshire approach to the blunt speaking military man is excellent and lights the screen up. It's just a shame he doesn't appear in it until past the half way mark.
Baby Driver ($34/$226.9) is an action/crime film written and directed by Edgar Wright, he of the "Cornetto Trilogy amongst others. This film is driven(!) by music and the ensemble cast that bring a zing and verve that carry you along through the fairly straightforward story. It's stylish and confident and shows what the director can do when let loose by a studio. It his most commercially successful film to date and I think one of his best (Hot Fuzz still holds that title for me).
Kingsman: The Golden Circle ($104/$395.3) was another sequel that delivered the goods in term of story and character development with an eye on a third film. Whilst it may have re-used some of the tropes from the original, there was a swagger, brightness and style to this one that outshone the first. That and a superb cameo by Elton John made this my sequel of the year.
Before the final film gets a mention, I will bring up 6 Days ($?/$0.3). I have already commented upon it here but it deserves saying again. This low budget action drama is well worth your time and I think this is a good instance of a streaming service (in this case, Netflix) picking up a film that would have disappeared into the background otherwise.
Finally, Murder on the Orient Express ($55/$280). Now I know people who don't like this Christie tale because of how the story works. Well, no spoilers, but I like it, it's different to the usual murder mystery stories. Many will compare this all-star cast version to the 1970's Albert Finney, but that would be to miss the point. This is a re-telling that is polished, confident and stylish. It works well and on the night we went to see it at the local cinema, the place was nearly full. Branagh directs and plays Poirot and he does a cracking job at both. I never really liked Finney in the role - I consider Peter Ustinov the definitive big-screen Poirot and nobody can touch David Suchet for the small screen interpretation. However, this adaptation works very well and sets up Death on the Nile which hopefully they'll start on soon.
So that's it for the year, there will be more book, film and game opinions next year. I hope you all have a good Christmas and a happy New Year
So, onto the films. Let's start off with the Marvel Cinematic Universe which saw three films released this year: Guardians of the Galaxy 2 ($200/$863.5), Spiderman: Homecoming ($175/$880.1) and Thor: Ragnarok ($180/$834.9). These mark the 15th, 16th and 17th films in the MCU respectively and continue the high quality, entertaining blockbusters that the series has come to epitomise. Whilst each is tonally different, they fall neatly into the MCU and develop their characters in meaningful ways at the same time as being enjoyable standalone films in their own right.
Guardians 2 had the difficult task of following the original, one of the true break-out hits of the MCU. That it did, even though it did feel a little too similar, but more of the same is good, right? Well, yeah, and the core story, Peter Quinn's meeting his father, was handled well (plus an excellent cameo), but there were signs of them coasting a bit (can we take much more Baby Groot?). Still, this was well made and fun. It did tease the nostalgia buds for the 1980's (as did Stranger Things 2) but I hope it moves past that in Guardians 3.
Spiderman: Homecoming was the dark horse of the MCU this year, the first full Spiderman film from Marvel (Captain America: Civil War doesn't count, that was a teaser). And boy, didn't they do well! Part of it was casting, Tom Holland nails Peter Parker and Michael Keaton as the villain was superb. There was humour, pathos, and a coming of age story that didn't feel forced. I, for one, was pleased Sony Pictures teamed up with Marvel for this and I wouldn't feel any sadness of it stayed that way. The original Toby Maguire trilogy started well and ended in a confused mess. The Andrew Garfield pair were just a mess. Maybe there is a brighter future here...
Thor: Ragnarok, the third standalone Thor film, marked a return to form after the po-faced Thor: The Dark World. There was colour, humour, excitement (calm down, Eddie!) and Cate Blanchett (seriously, dude!). The direction by Taika Waititi was light and assured, his turn as Korg is a highlight of the film. This was a serious and fun film at the same time and provided a buddy comedy act between Chris Hemsworth and Mark Ruffalo as Thor and Bruce Banner/The Hulk respectively leaving me with a smile on my face when I left the cinema.
A big surprise, and one of my favourite films of the year was Wonder Woman ($149/$821.7). A DC universe film, Wonder Woman broke the mould set by previous DC universe films and wasn't a dull, dark CGI mess - well, apart from the CGI fist fight at the end, but that's a superhero film issue in general. With a great central character and a decent story, Patty Jenkins delivered the shot in the arm that the DC series needed. Justice League ($300 rumoured/$617(!!!) went back to the original dark template and hasn't been anywhere as successful. I haven't seen that yet, probably will next week, but the League haven't done the series any favours.
Two big tent pole features have already received a kicking from me here, The Mummy ($125/$409) and Transformers: The Last Knight ($217/$605.4). The Mummy was such a disappointment that the two planned follow up movies for the Dark Universe series have both had their release dates removed from future schedules which does not bode well. Transformers: The Last Knight was a bomb and a half and whilst the lower budget Bumblebee spin off is due next year, the soft re-boot that the Last Knight heralded has put the series future in doubt.
Not all big-budget blockbusters had a tough time, The Fate and the Furious ($250/$1,235.7) - the 8th of the series, signalled a further move away from the illegal street racing of the first few films and more to an international espionage ensemble. Sometimes, you need a big, dumb popcorn movie to just relax with and FF8 was that film. It was not without its faults (Vin Diesel is po-faced to the extreme and the stunts are getting more and more outlandish), but with an cracking on-screen chemistry between Dwayne Johnson and Jason Statham and the latter's brilliant solo fight scene on the aircraft with a baby in tow, FF8 stayed just inside the line without veering into panto.
Speaking of panto and gormless idiocy, both Geostorm ($120/$207.6) and Baywatch ($69/$177) were forgettable. There was enough scene chewing in both that it overtook the end of the world CGI-fest in Geostorm and the by-the-numbers "comedy" of Baywatch. I would say that neither are worth your time.
The only animated film I saw this year was The LEGO Batman Movie ($80/$311.5). Smart, funny, self-aware and with of the best on-screen Batman's ever, the film hit all of the right notes. Filled with easter eggs and cameos, this film knew its audience and played to them with style.
There were more sequels this year, with T2: Trainspotting ($18/$41.6), a nostalgic look at the original that didn't seem to say anything new, even with twenty years separating them and John Wick: Chapter Two ($40/$171.5), a follow up that took everything that was good about the first film and turned it up to 11 whilst also progressing the character's story arc and setting up a third film. This is a series that deserves that film.
Staying with action and adding comedy, The Hitman's Bodyguard ($30/$176.5), was a mis-matched buddy film that worked better than I expected and was quite the gem. Yes, it was a relatively low budget feature but that was more of a help than a hindrance.
Dunkirk ($100/$525), a snapshot of the evacuation covering three characters over the period of 1 week, 1 day and 1 hour, their stories intertwined until they sync by the end, was a clever and well made film that, despite its good points, left me quite cold. True, the film feels empty anyway, you never feel that there are hundreds of thousands of troops trying to get home, but there is an emotional emptiness that gives the film a coldness that prevents me from liking it more.
Another film that left me cold was The Death of Stalin ($?/$6.6). Written and directed by Armando Iannucci (creator of The Thick of It, In the Loop and Veep), I expected more of this political comedy, but it fell flat for me, even if it was clever, observant and complex. In fact, the only high points (and only because the actors were allowed to use their own or own choice of accents) is when Jason Isaacs arrives on screen as General Zhukov - his Yorkshire approach to the blunt speaking military man is excellent and lights the screen up. It's just a shame he doesn't appear in it until past the half way mark.
Baby Driver ($34/$226.9) is an action/crime film written and directed by Edgar Wright, he of the "Cornetto Trilogy amongst others. This film is driven(!) by music and the ensemble cast that bring a zing and verve that carry you along through the fairly straightforward story. It's stylish and confident and shows what the director can do when let loose by a studio. It his most commercially successful film to date and I think one of his best (Hot Fuzz still holds that title for me).
Kingsman: The Golden Circle ($104/$395.3) was another sequel that delivered the goods in term of story and character development with an eye on a third film. Whilst it may have re-used some of the tropes from the original, there was a swagger, brightness and style to this one that outshone the first. That and a superb cameo by Elton John made this my sequel of the year.
Before the final film gets a mention, I will bring up 6 Days ($?/$0.3). I have already commented upon it here but it deserves saying again. This low budget action drama is well worth your time and I think this is a good instance of a streaming service (in this case, Netflix) picking up a film that would have disappeared into the background otherwise.
Finally, Murder on the Orient Express ($55/$280). Now I know people who don't like this Christie tale because of how the story works. Well, no spoilers, but I like it, it's different to the usual murder mystery stories. Many will compare this all-star cast version to the 1970's Albert Finney, but that would be to miss the point. This is a re-telling that is polished, confident and stylish. It works well and on the night we went to see it at the local cinema, the place was nearly full. Branagh directs and plays Poirot and he does a cracking job at both. I never really liked Finney in the role - I consider Peter Ustinov the definitive big-screen Poirot and nobody can touch David Suchet for the small screen interpretation. However, this adaptation works very well and sets up Death on the Nile which hopefully they'll start on soon.
So that's it for the year, there will be more book, film and game opinions next year. I hope you all have a good Christmas and a happy New Year
Wednesday, 13 December 2017
2017 - A Year in Books
And so to reading material. Whether by unintentional design or accident, most of this year's reading has been non-fiction with the odd novel here and there. That is not to say there isn't more fiction in my reading pile and, to be honest, the pile didn't get much lower this year, despite reducing my book spend. Anyhoo, these are the more memorable books I read this year.
Starting off is 2020: World at War. I put a review of this book here a few months back and, with hindsight, I still find it a disappointing read. It compared itself to the seminal works of General Sir John Hackett and by my judgement, it fares poorly. That was the low point of the year.
Fiction wise, there were two titles in The Expanse series, books 5 (Nemesis Games) and 6 (Babylon's Ashes) and The Flight of the Bat. I reviewed TFotB here and I still like it. As for The Expanse novels, they continued the story centred on James Holden and the crew of the Rocinante. What I like about this series is the complexity of the story, the nuanced characters and the narrative style. I have seen some reviews say it's the Game of Thrones of sci-fi but that would be a disservice to The Expanse. Far more tightly written and lacking any of the flab of the GoT books, The Expanse series are the kind of books that you can get through in a couple of days steady reading, a week or so if you read in bursts. They encompass high concept sci-fi but are grounded by characterisation. If you get the chance, I heartily recommend them.
Non fiction tended to centre around military history and there were a few corkers this year.
Exocet Falklands by Ewen Southby-Tailyour detailed the special forces operations of the Falklands War, including the crashed recon team that trekked across the Argentian border to safety and the proposed operations that would have culminated in Mikado, a one way suicide mission to take out Argentinian Super Etendard pilots at their home airfield. Well written and entertaining, you get the feel Southby-Tailyour has a grudge against the higher-ups involved, that the missions were guided by a "must do something" mentality rather than of military necessity and that the lower level officers didn't fight too hard in case their "can-do" spirit was seen as lacking. Although there are a few technical discrepancies in the text, they do not detract from an interesting tome that should be on anybody's list if you have an interest in special forces or the Falklands War.
Red November, written by a former US submariner W. Craig Reed, tells a tale of espionage and cold war encounters between US and Soviet submarines. The author details his father's role in the struggle as well as his own and the extremes the US Navy (and its divers in particular) went to to gather information on their adversary. This is an easy read and highly informative, it certainly opened my eyes to a topic I thought I knew well and is worth a read.
Hostile Skies is a memoir of Sea Harrier pilot David Morgan in the Falklands War. I will say the description of his role in the conflict is written very well but, and it's a big but, his personal life does get a mention as well as his spirituality. Yes, I know that would have a bearing on how he felt during the conflict but to be honest, these sections were distracting and I felt they didn't need to be there. They may have been added to give a bit of humanity to the gentleman but they weren't needed, his descriptions of conflict and its aftermath do that well enough.
Luxury Fleet by Holger H. Herwig, originally published in the 1970's, is the story of the High Seas Fleet, not just technically and politically, but more importantly, of the human perspective. Highly detailed and with contemporary accounts, Luxury Fleet added flesh to the bones of my knowledge of the High Seas Fleet gained from Dreadnought by Robert K. Massie. An essential read if you have any interest in the period, I was fortunate to pick up a copy of this from a friend and am very pleased I did.
King of the Killing Zone by Orr Kelly, published in 1989, tells the tale of the development of the M1 Abrams main battle tank. It's an interesting book, considering that within two years, the M1 would be tested in battle during the Gulf War and come out of it with flying colours. The story of the development is one of conflicting beliefs in fighting, internal domestic politics and not-invented-here syndrome. That any battle tank entered service is nothing short of a miracle and it proves marvellously that good project management is key to any major defence project; something that, even today, still seems to be hard to achieve. The author, a journalist, writes with a light touch and even when it does get technical, Kelly nimbly weaves the details into the narrative with ease.
If you like tales of debauchery, violence, moral degeneracy and torture, switch off from The Archers(!) and try The Romanovs by Simon Sebag Montefiore. I'd already ready his two part biography of Stalin and this volume, detailing the Romanovs from their lucky beginnings to tragic end, seemed to be in the same vein. In a nutshell, it's a cracking read. It's a hefty tome, as the subject demands, but Montefiore brings the individuals of the family to life and an understanding as to why they acted the way they did. Anyone with an interest in Russian history should add this to their list of must reads.
Finally, we have a trilogy that took me a good couple of months to get though, not through lack of trying, more through the sheer density of the test. Richard J Evans' The Third Reich trilogy (The Coming of the Third Reich, The Third Reich in Power and The Third Reich at War) are an all encompassing history of the rise and fall of Nazi power in Germany, Intensely detailed with contemporary statements, quotes and experiences, the trilogy is heavy going and, at times incredibly disturbing, as the processes used by Hitler and his cohort to gain popularity, then power, then finally self destruction are minutely examined. This is a thinking history of Nazism, it makes you consider events and practices we see today and realise that, certainly with social behaviour, the more things change, the more they stay the same. This trilogy was an impulse purchase and one I am glad I made. If you have any interest in history, either social or military, these three books will certainly inform and educate you.
That is it for books, so just one more review of the year to come, Film.
Starting off is 2020: World at War. I put a review of this book here a few months back and, with hindsight, I still find it a disappointing read. It compared itself to the seminal works of General Sir John Hackett and by my judgement, it fares poorly. That was the low point of the year.
Fiction wise, there were two titles in The Expanse series, books 5 (Nemesis Games) and 6 (Babylon's Ashes) and The Flight of the Bat. I reviewed TFotB here and I still like it. As for The Expanse novels, they continued the story centred on James Holden and the crew of the Rocinante. What I like about this series is the complexity of the story, the nuanced characters and the narrative style. I have seen some reviews say it's the Game of Thrones of sci-fi but that would be a disservice to The Expanse. Far more tightly written and lacking any of the flab of the GoT books, The Expanse series are the kind of books that you can get through in a couple of days steady reading, a week or so if you read in bursts. They encompass high concept sci-fi but are grounded by characterisation. If you get the chance, I heartily recommend them.
Non fiction tended to centre around military history and there were a few corkers this year.
Exocet Falklands by Ewen Southby-Tailyour detailed the special forces operations of the Falklands War, including the crashed recon team that trekked across the Argentian border to safety and the proposed operations that would have culminated in Mikado, a one way suicide mission to take out Argentinian Super Etendard pilots at their home airfield. Well written and entertaining, you get the feel Southby-Tailyour has a grudge against the higher-ups involved, that the missions were guided by a "must do something" mentality rather than of military necessity and that the lower level officers didn't fight too hard in case their "can-do" spirit was seen as lacking. Although there are a few technical discrepancies in the text, they do not detract from an interesting tome that should be on anybody's list if you have an interest in special forces or the Falklands War.
Red November, written by a former US submariner W. Craig Reed, tells a tale of espionage and cold war encounters between US and Soviet submarines. The author details his father's role in the struggle as well as his own and the extremes the US Navy (and its divers in particular) went to to gather information on their adversary. This is an easy read and highly informative, it certainly opened my eyes to a topic I thought I knew well and is worth a read.
Hostile Skies is a memoir of Sea Harrier pilot David Morgan in the Falklands War. I will say the description of his role in the conflict is written very well but, and it's a big but, his personal life does get a mention as well as his spirituality. Yes, I know that would have a bearing on how he felt during the conflict but to be honest, these sections were distracting and I felt they didn't need to be there. They may have been added to give a bit of humanity to the gentleman but they weren't needed, his descriptions of conflict and its aftermath do that well enough.
Luxury Fleet by Holger H. Herwig, originally published in the 1970's, is the story of the High Seas Fleet, not just technically and politically, but more importantly, of the human perspective. Highly detailed and with contemporary accounts, Luxury Fleet added flesh to the bones of my knowledge of the High Seas Fleet gained from Dreadnought by Robert K. Massie. An essential read if you have any interest in the period, I was fortunate to pick up a copy of this from a friend and am very pleased I did.
King of the Killing Zone by Orr Kelly, published in 1989, tells the tale of the development of the M1 Abrams main battle tank. It's an interesting book, considering that within two years, the M1 would be tested in battle during the Gulf War and come out of it with flying colours. The story of the development is one of conflicting beliefs in fighting, internal domestic politics and not-invented-here syndrome. That any battle tank entered service is nothing short of a miracle and it proves marvellously that good project management is key to any major defence project; something that, even today, still seems to be hard to achieve. The author, a journalist, writes with a light touch and even when it does get technical, Kelly nimbly weaves the details into the narrative with ease.
If you like tales of debauchery, violence, moral degeneracy and torture, switch off from The Archers(!) and try The Romanovs by Simon Sebag Montefiore. I'd already ready his two part biography of Stalin and this volume, detailing the Romanovs from their lucky beginnings to tragic end, seemed to be in the same vein. In a nutshell, it's a cracking read. It's a hefty tome, as the subject demands, but Montefiore brings the individuals of the family to life and an understanding as to why they acted the way they did. Anyone with an interest in Russian history should add this to their list of must reads.
Finally, we have a trilogy that took me a good couple of months to get though, not through lack of trying, more through the sheer density of the test. Richard J Evans' The Third Reich trilogy (The Coming of the Third Reich, The Third Reich in Power and The Third Reich at War) are an all encompassing history of the rise and fall of Nazi power in Germany, Intensely detailed with contemporary statements, quotes and experiences, the trilogy is heavy going and, at times incredibly disturbing, as the processes used by Hitler and his cohort to gain popularity, then power, then finally self destruction are minutely examined. This is a thinking history of Nazism, it makes you consider events and practices we see today and realise that, certainly with social behaviour, the more things change, the more they stay the same. This trilogy was an impulse purchase and one I am glad I made. If you have any interest in history, either social or military, these three books will certainly inform and educate you.
That is it for books, so just one more review of the year to come, Film.
Monday, 11 December 2017
2017 - A Year in TV
TV in 2017, for me, was a mix of a couple of new shows and new series of returning shows that varied greatly in quality. Whilst some series showed an uptick in quality, and new shows started well, there were a couple that, based on their current UK runs, no longer have the appeal they once had.
Starting off with the Marvel TV universe, this year saw Iron Fist, The Defenders and The Punisher carrying the torch for the small screen Marvel Universe, and each to varying degrees of quality. Iron Fist was a disappointment, the acting was stilted, the pacing all wrong and the story didn't really do anything. Indeed, the casting of Finn Jones is the worst of the shows issues, his delivery of lines is limp and insipid and even his appearance in Defenders is remarked upon with disdain and sarcasm. There is to be a second season but it will need to improve massively.
The Defenders was the long-awaited meeting of Jessica Jones, Luke Cage, Iron Fist and Daredevil. Did it live up to the billing? Well, kinda. Again, as with other Marvel TV series, pacing was an issue along with what can only be described as budget issues - at times, the show looks cheap and seems to put the characters in situations that feel they were dictated by production budget concerns rather than following the story to its logical conclusion (that lift crash for one!). Still, it was decent, and Sigourney Weaver added a touch of class.
The Punisher was, to be honest, the best of the Marvel series released this year (I have not seen Inhumans and given the reviews, not likely to either). It's a harsh, bloody, violent tale of revenge, redemption and survival, and it does not hold back. Indeed, some scenes, particularly in later episodes are very hard to watch but they do serve the story so fall just short of being labelled torture porn, but only just. The story itself is well thought out and for once, the pacing matches the episode count. Previous shows feel like that even though they only have 10-13 episodes, they run out of story for 8 and stretch the rest out. The acting is uniformly good and I only hope that Jon Bernthal gets a chance to play the character again.
Another new show this year was Star Trek: Discovery. Some Trek fans do not like this show, its tone and delivery are too different from previous Trek shows and the message it delivers is all wring. Well, no, I think they are wrong. Trek, from the tail end of TNG to the limp ending of Enterprise had become safe, stale and formulaic. Ratings were an issue for pretty much every show in that period, even if DS9 and Voayger completed their seven season runs. What the brand needed for a re-launch was something different, and Discovery delivers that in spades whilst remaining familiar enough to mostly keep within the established continuity. Changes to that continuity look like they will be explained in the second half of season one due in January and a second season has already been ordered. The cast are excellent and I will say that Jason Isaacs as the ship's captain looks like he is having a ball every time he is onscreen. Add to that a decent line of scripts and production values that let the universe shine (rumoured to be $8 million per episode), Discovery is a show that I eagerly look forward to returning to.
Final new show, well, limited series, was Gunpowder, a drama based on the Gunpowder Plot of 1605. I watched the first episode and and forgot the rest. Seriously, after 60 slow, supposedly tension building minutes, I found I couldn't care less. Well made, certainly, but it just did not grab my interest and I felt the first episode could have been cut to 40 minutes or less due to the lingering camera shots alone.
Existing shows with new seasons this year were a mixed bag. For one, Gotham, I didn't even bother starting. Season two felt overly long and convoluted. The premise of Gotham was always promising but it never really delivered on that promise. For me, no more.
Scorpion season three was another disappointment, where a previously kooky, light hearted and fun show became simultaneously more serious, illogical and comedic. I think they ran out of stories so started plucking random stuff out of the air to fill episodes. The season opener, a two parter partially set in Bulgaria (a very dark back lot but you can still see the sand covered streets(!), was just bad, and the rescue of one character by a supersonic bomber pilot plain horse poop! When the fourth season gets its airing on Netflix, I'm not sure I'll be joining Walt and the gang again.
Stranger Things 2 was a highlight for me after a slow, but stellar first season last year. This time round, they started on all cylinders and improved from there. This season, introducing new characters and a bit more background to Eleven and the Upside Down, was brilliant. Yeah, it played on nostalgia for the 80's that people of a certain age have (and those younger pretend were cool but I lived through it and it wasn't all He-Man and Ghostbusters...), but I look forward to season three whenever that arrives (hopefully late 2018, more likely 2019).
Stranger Things 2 was a highlight for me after a slow, but stellar first season last year. This time round, they started on all cylinders and improved from there. This season, introducing new characters and a bit more background to Eleven and the Upside Down, was brilliant. Yeah, it played on nostalgia for the 80's that people of a certain age have (and those younger pretend were cool but I lived through it and it wasn't all He-Man and Ghostbusters...), but I look forward to season three whenever that arrives (hopefully late 2018, more likely 2019).
The last two series did get better, though one was bittersweet. Sense8 has been a tremendous show from the beginning and the second season hit the ground running, going full pelt until the cliff-hanger ending that begged for a third season. However, the show's strength of global scale meant that it was expensive, too expensive for Netflix who felt the viewing figures were not worth the estimated $100 million budget per season. There is a silver lining - although no one picked up the show for another season, Netflix have okayed a two hour special to finish the story and I hope they do it in style. It's a shame that a show with vision, scale and sheer story telling chutzpah did not get the viewing figures it deserved.
Last show in this post and my show of the year, The Expanse season two. It took its time arriving on Netflix (it's produced by SyFy in the US, whilst Netflix have international rights), but when it did, oh boy! Continuing the story of James Holden and the crew of the Rocinante, season two brings more threads of books 1 to 3, ensuring that the third season will tie these threads up. Production values are immense, the acting great and the scripts and story intelligent. Where does it fall down? Well, possibly in the lack of viewers. SyFy haven't released figures and Netflix rarely release any. Finishing after three seasons would be sad, but would tie up the story book-wise. However, having read books four and five, and half way through six, I can only buy hope that the show gets picked up for more. We'll have to see but I, for one, am looking forward to it greatly.
That's it for TV shows, and yeah, it's a pretty similar list to last year but there just isn't the time or the inclination to watch that much, hence why some shows will drop by the wayside.
Next up, books...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)