Book Review - Doctor Sleep by Stephen King

Author - Stephen King
Pages - 500

Why not, lets throw a book review in the mix, especially considering this one is film related. Ever wondered what happened to Dan 'Doc' Torrance after the events of the Shining?! No? Well, me neither really but I thought I'd give it a go. A simple horror novel to get me back into casual reading again seemed like a good idea after university life drowned me in science literature.

Anyway, Doctor Sleep follows Dan, a recovering alcoholic, and his life at a hospital ward were he uses his telepathic 'Shining' ability to help the dead pass into their next life. He meets Abra, a powerful Shining girl, who fears she is being tracked by a group called the True Knot - essentially vampires that feed on children with telepathic 'steam'.

Yeah it alright, nothing more, nothing less. If it were a roller coaster it would have you looping and falling one moment before trundling along at the pace of a monorail. There were scenes that were truly gripping, such as King's vivid, engrossing description of the morning after one of Dan's alcoholic sprees, or the first time the True Knot's sultry leader, Rose, infests Abra's mind - I genuinely felt a pang of unease sitting in bed before sleeping. Unfortunately they felt a little too few and far between, and I kept losing interest at their incessant, uninteresting conversation.  I think part of the problem was Dan's Character. I just found him a bit too boring, inconsistent and matter of fact - especially considering his troubled past. Abra on the other hand was a joy to read and one of the highlights.

Worth Reading? If you're a King fan it's standard, harmless King affair, and has its moments that 'shine' (not funny), but as expected it lacks the tension, originality and iconic moments of the Shining book. If you're a Kubrick fan and love the Shining film, then you probably wont get much out of Doctor Sleep.

 6

Pokemon X & Y (3DS)

At the age of 8 I pretty much lived and breathed Pokemon like a lot of kids back in the day. I remember promising myself "I WILL LOVE POKEMON FOREVER!!"... and whilst I don't still wake up every morning eager to watch the TV show or admire my card collection, the sight of Pokemon will always release a powerful nostalgic wave. So what better game to treat my new 3DS to (admittedly amongst not much choice) than the new Pokemon game?!

Pokemon x/y vs Pokemon red/blue.

After playing Animal Crossing to death with my girlfriend, we preordered the new Pokemon with great anticipation. Not since Gold and Silver had we played the franchise - although I hear the games in between are almost identical? When the day finally came we loaded it up in excitement and, yep, that wave of nostalgia suddenly hit us as it all felt so familiar. Waking up in your mum's house. Meeting the team and your rival. Picking your starter Pokemon. Getting a buzz from your first pokemon evolution - which was especially exciting not knowing what the new ones would look like. Seeing the old 150 rendered in 3D was also a joy and I soon found Mr. Mime and Poliwhirl, my two childhood favorites (for unknown reasons. I guess the swirl was cool or something? Who knows!)  

 

Pokemon Amie feature - petting Pikachu

Too familiar? For me and my girlfriend certainly not. Whilst we probably would have been entertained purely by an exact copy of the originals with nicer graphics (if it's not broken why fix it?), there are enough new features to keep it feeling relatively fresh. There's a whole in depth petting/ mini games section which is great fun and transferable to the battlefield. A host of online features. You can customise your character and explore the huge Lumiose city (although I'm not keen on the strange camera angle when you visit). There are mega evolutions which are a little pointless but fun to see.

New features aside the foundations of the game are practically the same. However, it's such a winning formula who cares? Catching. Battling. Levelling up. Customising. Discussing with your friends. It still feels as entertaining as back in the Pokemon Hay days but with a fresh glossy shine.

8

Thor: The Dark World

Director - Alan Taylor (A few Game of Thrones episodes)
Starring - Chris Hemsworth, Natalie Portman, Tom Hiddleston
Details - 112 mins
Release - Autumn 2013

Since seeing Iron Man 3 and learning more and more of Marvel's future plans, my levels of marvel excitement has been slowly and steadily increasing up to the point that the idea of going to see Thor 2 at the cinema made me physically jump into the air with excitement. So, me and my girlfriend cycled down to the local cinema on Orange 2 for 1 Wednesdays, me doing my best Thor and Loki impressions to the point I was told to be quiet (largely because they were rubbish), and sat down in a rather empty screening of the 2D version.

From the moment my behind touched that seat, all the way until the renowned Marvel post credit sequence my brain was bombarded with Asgardian entertainment of the highest order. Like Iron Man 3 which built on everything that made Tony Stark such an enjoyable character to watch, Thor 2 took the spectacle of the first and ramped it up to a whole new level. Its such a bizarre mix of Ancient Norse and science fiction technology, that's absolutely ridiculous - take the flying Asgardian boats zipping round like Star Wars X fighters - but its just so much fun to watch. This time we get to see a lot more of Thor's world, having been through all of the introductions.

Whilst its not being such a visual spectacle Thor 2 fills in everything else nicely. Natalie Portman's character takes a more integral role, and we didn't have to endure another cringeworthy starry eyed Jane going in for another cliched kiss (although one scene comes very close to making you feel ill). Loki is obviously a highlight, suiting the sidelines and the banter that comes with it, rather than the focal villain as in the Avengers. I especially loved the Captain America cameo, showing just how comfortable Marvel is with crossing over characters now. There wasn't a moment of boredom. In fact I looked at my watch only to hope there was more of the film left! And my girlfriend let out gasps of 'Oh noooo!' as the film threw some fun twists and turns at us which is always a good sign.

Its a Marvel film, and you know what to expect now. Okay, its no Avengers, but Thor: The Dark World is infinitely entertaining. I might be so far gone into the realms of Marvel bias that nothing could ruin my enjoyment of seeing Thor, but I think its great place to be, and I think everyone should just sit back and enjoy 2 hours of pure comic fantasy escapism. 

9 - You know if like these films by now. If you do, you're in for a treat at the cinema!   

Amour - and why 'arthouse' isn't for me

Director - Michael Haneke
Starring - Jean-Louis Trintignant, Emmanuelle Riva
Details - 127 mins, French
Release -  2012
IMDB score - 7.8 

Somethings definitely changing with the critic inside me. At one time I read Empire religiously and took in online comments and the general consensus allowing it become my own opinion.  It, without doubt, had a detrimental effect on the way I write. But now I'm changed reviewer!.. sort of... well, I'm try to be more relaxed, more honest and taking off the consensus or pretentious tinted spectacles.

I thought Amour was a good film to show this because its reception was generally very positive, especially within arthouse circles. Yet, at one time I probably would've agreed with the consensus, and extracted all the elements that I thought had made it so well received.'Amour was brilliantly acted, with fantastic camera shots' I would say... 'Its highly realistic, really immersing us in the sad yet uplifting world of real love' blah blah etc etc - it's just a dull, uninspired way of writing and surely if I was writing this way, other people have been doing the same? It only makes sense that naturally we like to follow the consensus in order to fit in. But, if I'm brutally honest with myself, I found Amour rather boring! 

Basically it's about an elderly couple whose love is tested when the wife deteriorates after a stroke. Amour is honest and realistic about such a situation - showing us exactly how it is - and yes it does have its strengths as an arthouse film. Yet, apart the ending, which did send a poignant message to me about just how far love can be tested, the rest of the film was mostly a slow, dull and drawn out affair.

I feel bad being so negative, but it just doesn't make for engrossing cinema. Amour didn't capture me, or immerse me. The ending made me think - which was good - but up until that point it was just slow and sad. Scenes were they stared at each other for, what felt like minutes. Scenes were they'd have slow conversations about nothing much in particular. Scenes were he'd try and catch a pigeon and frustratingly fail at such an agaonisingly slow speed. Apart from the slow scenes, the other scenes were just upsetting. The house itself were it was nearly all set was drab itself! To someone else this all might be describing why the film is so excellent and well made, but personally I learnt very little and can summarise my emotion as overall boredom, interjected by moments of sadness. Overrated.

5 - Rent only if you are a fan of arthouse cinema. But maybe ask yourself why in this case.

Mini Reviews: The Bling Ring/ Byzantium/ Cloudy with a Chnace of Meatballs

Having a bit of a film catch up at the moment. It always feels good renting from my local video store, as its a family run business, in a world where even Blockbusters have been killed off by Love Film and Netflix. Decided to try making a simple little casual video review too (see below!).   

The Bling Ring


Director - Sofia Coppola
Starring - Katie Chang, Emma Watson
Run Time - 90mins

90 minutes of essentially young, annoying kids stealing from rich celebrities and partying. That really is it. Okay, the parting and stealing is filmed well and I did feel immersed in their world, but by the end of the film I felt like I'd learnt very little. The characters were shallow and I couldn't connect to any of them - even the young boy who I think we were supposed to sympathise somewhat with? They were all complete unlikable bitches, and not even interesting bitches for that matter. Maybe this was the point, but why bother when you can just read the true story online which its supposed to be based on? Meh, I guess it was short and held mine and my girlfriends interest but on reflection I'll definitely forget about this by next year.    

5 - At a push maybe a rental if there's literally nothing else you want to watch.

Byzantium

Director - Neil Jordan
Starring -  Saoirse Ronan, Gemma Arterton
Run Time - 118 mins


The second film we rented on Halloween night after The Bling Ring. This time more relevant to the occasion - about vampires in the modern world as two female vampires survive by being in the prostitute industry. It started out promising - boobs, beheading, blood - but slowly became a bit of a drag, meandering here and there, never really having a real focus, until we were both bored and uninterested in the ending. I think part of the problem was the tone was a bit everywhere. The modern vampire theme didn't clash very well with the period drama that sometimes made itself apparent. The acting felt fake and out of place and resulted in some of the characters just feeling awkward and bizzare. It was okay and watchable, but our interest soon dwindled to "please just end now" by the time the final showdown happened.

6 - Promising start. Promising concept. But badly and awkwardly executed. Again another rental - at a push.

Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs

Director - Phil Lord, Chris Miller
Starring - Anna Faris, Bill Hader, Bruce Campbell
Run Time - 90 mins

We finally got round to watching this after needing a fun, easy to watch animation, and being inspired by the sequels amusing trailers (with a talking strawberry). And that's exactly what we got. It was fun, easy to watch and very random - although by the title I probably shouldn't have been surprised. It looked great, the only downside being it left us feeling very hungry.

7  - Rent or buy cheap.

Cloud Atlas

Director: The  Wachowski's and Tom Tykwer
Starring: Tom Hanks, Halle Berry and Hugh Grant
Run Time: 172 mins

I literally just finished watching Cloud Atlas and thought I'd write a quick review, as its fresh in my mind. Perhaps its a bit bias doing it this way, not letting it digest, but also maybe more honest? Either way my initial reaction is that I loved it!

 I went in blind having not read the book and knowing very little about Cloud Atlas other than it being about a number of characters and stories spanning across different time periods, ranging from the seemingly trivial to the grand - yet all linked in ther themes and ideas.

The visuals were stunning, from every aspect. Usually I'd highlight the special effects, the make up and costume design, the cinematography or the choreography of the action scenes, but in Cloud Atlas they are all such high quality. From the scenery on the primitive but future island story to the sci fi city for instance. There is so much variety in the visuals but none are weak at all!

The make up must get a special mention though, and I'd already heard how surprising and even controversial it was. It really is phenomenal how they managed to change the actors - some very distinct - beyond recognition! Although Hugo Weaving couldn't get away with it - even as a woman!! - but the likes of Tom Hanks, Hugh Grant and Halle Berry completely slipped past me dressed as some of their characters. We had a great time trying to spot them all and where shocked as the credits rolled showing the actors and the characters they had played, followed by gasps of 'Nooo, surely not!?" from my mum. It really added to the film's guiding principle of life and how it is connected by a vast yet repetitive network of time.

 

I can see why it received mixed reviews. Its really doesn't let you catch you breath at all, and even at nearly three hours could of benefited from another hour or more. At some points it feels like an awfully long trailer, stopping and starting at each of the 7 or so stories so quickly you hardly have time to process the plot, let alone the deeper, more complex meanings. However, I felt it only added to the idea of connectivity and as the pace quickens surely it only seems fitting that the juxtaposition would too?

For me it worked on every level, and left me thinking, inspired and wanting to read the book. Understandably, the film probably suffers if you've read the book beforehand, especially considering how grand and complex the story is - going in blind certainly paid off this time. Simple minded, easy to please me and my family, weren't dissapointed, but Mr pretentious, I've read and studied the book three times will certainly have a lot more to say...

8 - Easily one of the more interesting films of the year. Definitely an experience regardless of whether you enjoy the style or not. Rent it!

Robot and Frank

Release: Early 2013
Director: Jake Schreier
Starring: Peter Sarsgaard, Frank Langella, Liv Tyler
Details: 89mins, 12A/PG13

Originally this review would have been the remake of the Evil Dead, but after a trip to my local video store, me and girlfriend felt bad subjecting my mother to 2 hours of graphic, detailed blood and guts, and so ended up with Robot and Frank instead. I also knew it was more likely to come with the video store man's uncommunicated approval. I mean, I couldn't ruin my reputable pretentious film image by renting mindless gore out could I?!...   

Anyway, 'Short and sweet' is what came to mind when the credits rolled after just an hour and 25 minutes. A simple, contemporary science fiction idea developed around an equally simple plot. Robot and Frank, as the title suggests, follows a retired, ageing cat burglar Frank after his son buys him a servant robot to help him around the house. After initially turning his nose to the idea he eventually comes round to it when he realises he can use the robot to help take him back to his burglary heydays.

To be honest, there's not a lot to say about Robot and Frank so, like the film, I'll keep this review short and (hopefully) sweet. It's a film that you get what it says on the tin. It's nothing new or original. It doesn't go in any particularly surprising directions and there's no huge plot twists. However that doesn't make it a bad film - it's equally both funny and ultimately sad as the theme of friendship is carried carefully throughout the film, making you think, but never too hard. Its an easy film to recommend, except if you're my dad, who fell asleep midway, due to the lack of explosions or high speed car chases. At least if my mum runs away with another man, I'll know to buy him a robot now.

7/10

An easy to watch rental. Nothing special but nothing to criticise either! 

Iron Man 3

Release: Summer 2013
Director: Shane Black
Starring: Robert Downey Jr, Gwyneth Paltrow, Guy Pearce
Details: 12A/ PG 13, 130mins


Unless you were living in a Chinese pipe last year you'll know The Avengers was a) wildly and surprisingly successful and b) really really good! It was for many, including me, THE best comic book film of all time, certainly aided by the hype and anticipation surrounding the build up, with the introduction of Thor, Captain America and Iron Man. I poured all my excitement into the Avengers and whilst it was ultimately worth it (I had multiple nerdgasms seeing the team finally together in the last battle sequence, which never happens), the aftermath left me a bit deflated, having to start back at square one again.

So Iron Man wasn't really on my radar, which as it turns out, was probably a good thing, because when I went to see it at the cinema, I was pleasantly surprised by how great it was. Although, maybe I shouldn't have been surprised. I mean, the quality of Marvel's films has been steadily increasing (there about) the past few years to a point where they are consistently and reliably above average. Whilst the Avengers is still the pinnacle, and will likely remain that way (forever?), Iron Man 3 takes all the ingredients that made Tony Stark the 'genius, billionaire, playboy, philanthropist' everyone loved, and throws them together.

The story isn't drastically inventive and basically boils down to - bad guy plus new weapon equals global terrorist threat - but that's not what makes Iron Man 3 so watchable - its all the details. Tony's post traumatic stress from the events of the Avengers is a nice realistic footnote. The plot twist half way through the film regarding the villain was a bold and fitting move. Taking away Tony's suit was a nice throwback to the first film and we really got to see his intelligence come to life. Some really nice set pieces like the civilians falling out the plane and Iron Man's daring rescue. The humour is at the top of its game. I could go on, but basically, it's got a bit of everything that kept my family, my girlfriend and me all very amused - and my girlfriend is a harsh critic!

Whilst we all thought it was the best Iron Man yet it would be nice to know that it was the last in the solo series. I'm ready to move on and be excited by a new hero brought to life. Bring on Ant Man, Doctor Strange, Black Panther or anyone! In fact, bring on 'Guardians of the Galaxy' next year - now that's new and daring - reminiscent of the Avengers when it was first touted. I mean I'll probably go see Thor and Cap 2, and they'll probably be decent, but it just doesn't fill me with the same anticipation that they did the first time round.

8/10

An excellent, safe choice cinema trip for everyone.