Comments (0)

By scribblings, January 23, 2012 10:03 pm

The other  night, I finally decided to watch a movie that I’d had for quite a long time in my ever expanding DVD collection. I guess I was waiting to see how the world would react to the Hollywood remake, but without having seen the latter, I’d say this one should really be the definitive version.But then again, I had found out that they’d made a film version as I was reading the first book in Spain.

It has the majority of the scenes and plot lines that the book has, but there is one I suppose they had to leave out as it serves no purpose for the movie, but serves the plot for the book. I’m talking about the relationship between the magazine “Millenium” and those who work in it, especially Blomqvist and Erica Berger, and that their relationship was an open one, both personal and professional. The magazine of the books is an entity, a character almost, in it’s own right. it serves as a mouthpiece to get the truth out in public.

But there are only a handful of scenes where Erica Berger appears and also the magazine itself appears. Berger is dismissed in the movie in one scene, whereas in the book they are very close, even down to the endless amount of sex between Blomqvist and Berger. I suppose you can’t have too much sex in the movies (but then again, in the movie you do have the rape scene).

Apart from that one snag, everything’s there. Blomqvist may be slightly older that what I read him to be, but everything’s there. i wasn’t quite sure about the ending, but then realised that it was probably as close to the book as they can possibly get. Noomi Rapace is excellent as Lisbeth, even though I think the way I read it in the book Lisbeth is far more of an animal, more primal, far more anti-social, but the film version works for me. The scenery is good too. They managed to get that dead on.

All in all, a good movie.

Threelight’s Verdict: 4.5/5

A good strong movie. Now I can see what the hype at the time was about.

Comments (0)

By scribblings, January 4, 2012 6:24 pm

Now, this one’s a bit tricky. I certainly didn’t expect it to be, seen as the earler two novels were basically novels of the movies (however bad the movies may have turned out for some people).

But the point is: I enjoyed the book immensely.

All the characters are there, of course. But it’s the character’s interactions and emotions that really comes through in the books, which is conspicuously missing from the movie itself. The characters in the movie are very two-dimensional. They are just pawns to support the well-rounded characters for Episodes IV to VI.

The books make them more three-dimensional. You can see the slide of Anakin Skywalker into becoming Darth Vader, that it was gradual. He did see Palpatine as a father figure, something that wasn’t quite intimated in the movie. Obi Wan’s peace with the world, and calmness comes through in the book, but again not the movie. Jar Jar Binks says nothing in the book, but says something in the movies.

It’s all a shame really. If they made the movie like the book, it would have been a great movie, but it will forever rank as a good movie.

But I digress. This is not about the differences between the books and the films. The book was great, a lot better than I thought it would be, and I found myself wondering what new nuggets I could take away from it. There are a few things not talked about in the movie, but they are there in the book.

I suppose in my other blog, it’s time to do a post about differences between books and films of books…

Threelight’s verdict: 8/10

The Force is strong with this one.

Comments (0)

By scribblings, November 18, 2011 12:55 am

I finished reading a biography of REM a couple of days ago. I’ve had it in my collection for quite a while (about 6 years). The book itself was written in 2002, being a newer edition of a book first published in 1989 (you still following me?). I suppose they will no doubt include a super-updated version which explains the reasons for them splitting up, but there you go.

It covers the band until just after their “Reveal” album, and also mentions Peter Buck’s air-rage incident. So it covers them at the height of their powers, before each release became less commercial than the one before it. Admittedly, I came to the band through “Shiny Happy People” and “Losing My Religion“, and the majority of their earlier music is inaccessible to me (the style of music, rather than the fact I can’t get hold of the earlier albums).

So, from reading the book, I can accurately summise that I’m a fan of their “middle years”, where their music is slightly more popular and not too “out there”.  [Okay, now I have a confession to make: I don't like the pretensiousness of Pink Floyd, it's just too "out there" for me.]. I may have to listen to their later albums again to see whether this my tastes in music have changed.

The trouble is, the book doesn’t give too much away. Only one of the band was interviewed for the book (Peter Buck, the official “spokesman” for the band). Otherwise it’s from articles and interviews from people outside the band itself. That’s the problem with some band biographies. I remember reading one about Deacon Blue, which was all taken from magazine articles and not one connected to the band whatsover (a dull read it was too). I’m not saying this one was dull as well, but it may have needed some fleshing out, all the same.

Threelight’s verdict: 6/10

Could have been a great read if more interviews with the band and closer acquaintances were done.

Comments (0)

By scribblings, October 9, 2011 12:42 am

Even though the official release date of the  “Senna” DVD is on Monday, I managed to get mine posted to me today, and I spent an evening watching it. Now, for me this is rare, in that because of the amount of DVDs I have, I have some which only seem to be there to complete a collection, or it’s something I want to watch later…about 2 years later. (A good sign as any that I have too many, and I should really have a sort-out, but that’s another story)

I’d read reviews of it, and also asked a few people (especialy wanted to get the view of the Grand Prix Fan at work), and observed that a few people including the aforementioned Fan, had cried when they watched it. I have to confess here that I was left with a tear in my eye. It wasn’t so much his death, but more like what happened in Brazil in the time afterwards when his coffin was flown back to Brazil.

I thoroughly enjoyed this one immensely. Having been old enough to know the racing of Prost, Senna, Mansell, Hill, Piquet, Patrese etc, Senna was more a sportsman of my generation. I had no idea of the really intense rivalry between Prost and Senna, but from this excellent movie, you come away being a lot more the wiser.

A number of things come to mind:

1) Prost always seems never to be at fault. It was always the “Perfect One”. Even in the interviews on the second disk, I cam away believing that despite the reconciliation after Prost retired, Prost always thought, and still thinks, that he was correct. He made the mistake of taking everything personally, whereas all Senna was after was to race. That was what he was born to do, but, even now, Prost doesn’t seem to realise that.

2) The one person that everybody was trying to chase even then, and even with the spectre of cheating over him, was one Michael Schumacher, arguably one on of the most dangerous drivers of the ’90s. I remember one or two drivers being quite angry with Schumacher at odd times. I even remember that during one of the drivers’ meetings, that some of the drivers were saying that he was dangerous, and that if he didn’t rein himself in, someone would get killed (this happening after Senna’s death). I even remember, because of David Coulthard giving out the same that Schumacher gave out every race, that in on race Schumacher went for Coulthard’s throat and they both had to be separated.

3) Senna did not like the politics of the sport; he just wanted to race. This seems to echo in Lewis Hamilton’s race year so far. Having fallen foul of the stewards and being penalised for seemingly mild misdemenours, Hamilton has been forced to change his racing style, hence his reaction to the question of why he was being penalised: “Maybe because I’m black.” It’s more and more clear that Hamilton, like Senna, does not like politics in the sport, which sometimes he has to play along with.

4) Ron Dennis has a knack of choosing the best drivers doesn’t he? He managed to get Senna, who started off in go-karting, and so did Lewis Hamilton. Both were nurtured and had inherently natural ability to race. It remains to be seen whether the departure of Ron Dennis is the real reason why Hamilton’s form is bad this year. I predict that in the Japanese Grand Prix this year Hamilton will probably come something like third.

5) It’s not the car, it’s the driver, innit.

All in all, Clarkson is correct. It’s one of the best documentaries I’ve ever seen and the best in my extensive collection

Threelight’s Verdict: 10/10

For a post this long, which is rare, and for it to make sense to me, it must be a good movie

Comments (0)

By scribblings, July 26, 2011 4:07 pm

Hmm, interesting one this one. I put off getting the hardback when it first came out, but I saw they were selling it cheap at the local chain store in the local shopping dump precinct, so I decided to give it a go.

Easy premise, Bond hunts down someone who is hell-bent on taking over the world, and Bond saves the day. So, it reads like a Fleming novel, some of the dialogue feels like a Fleming novel, the plot is similar to a Fleming novel, but being a big fan of the original novels, and not the movies, I couldn’t help but think one thing: wouldn’t the plot be best for the movies. Yes, I understand that Fleming did write grandiose stuff (Dr No: affecting the gold supplies, Thunderball: stealing an atomic bomb), but the good thing about the later Fleming stuff is that it gets down to the little things about Bond’s life. Which I like.

But a good attempt all the same. It was never going to be an exact clone of Fleming, but as far as the rest goes, it was an excellent attempt.

When’s the next one coming out?

Threelights Verdict: 7/10

Comments (0)

By scribblings, July 6, 2011 1:40 pm

I’d read this book years ago, and quite enjoyed it. Then again, it was probably a speed read, and didn’t really soak up what I was reading. So I decided to pick it up again and read it.

What a bitch fest the book is! And that’s from grown men too.

While everybody is allowed to have their say, it shows all the players in the cinema of the ’70s as being bitter, or worse, dead because of the amount of marajiuna and cocaine that was consumed. Spurred on by one or a couple of successes, the directors thought they could do whatever they liked, even if that meant trampling over those people who were helping them.

Take Martin Scorcese, for example. He made Mean Streets and Taxi Driver in the ’70s, Raging Bull was not the success it later became, and his next hit was about 10 years later with the excellent Goodfellas. And Francis Ford Copolla, who was more power hungry than doing what he did best, direct movies.

The moral of the tale really is that the studios are there to make sure everything runs smoothly. Without them, the whole thing falls apart because of the ego’s and megalomania of the directors.

The only ones to come out smelling of roses, movie wise, are George Lucas and Stephen Spielberg. They made the movies that everybody wanted to see, rather than the pretentious twaddle that the others, maybe Scorcese and Copolla aside, churned out.

The book makes you understand the movies coming out now. The studios govern what is spent on the movie, but the director does what he wants. The movie comes out, and everybody hopes that it’s the next Star Wars or Avatar, making more money for all concerned, including the directors.

That’s why just about every movie coming out of Hollywood now can trace it’s lineage back to the movie that started it all: Star Wars.

Threelight’s Rating: 8/10

Comments (0)

By scribblings, March 4, 2011 11:37 pm

It was what the book was about that I picked it up, and also because it was the last book that one of my favourite SF authors wrote. The sleeve gives it away. The atomic bombs of the late 40s sent a race of aliens to Earth to destroy the Earth, but when they get to Earth they end up stranded.

Ages ago I had a theory: the amount of UFO sightings after 1947 were because of the nuclear detonations a few years earlier, and that cause some aliens to come and have a gander at what the scene is.

Unfortunately, this book takes the opposite and the American/movie view that all aliens are bad. It takes about 3/4 of the book to get there (should have been a lot sooner rather than a mad build-up). Then again, that may have happened because Arthur C Clarke was dying, I dunno. It’s hard to see who wrote what, which is different to other collaborations I’ve read. Sometime it’s been written like it’s a conversation, other times it’s written like a standard science fiction book. Having never read Pohl’s work, I can’t comment about his writing style.

Loads of build-up to the main event, from the main character’s childhood to being involved with Somalian pirates, to being the man who discovers a more agreeable solution to Fermat’s Last Theorem to the aliens coming to land on Earth. What was the big surprise was something to do with Eygpt becoming “The Arab Republic of Eygpt, and then them not having enough money to do anything, even though the Americans are pouring aid into the country.

So, most of the book is wasted, and superflous, just providing a very long back story, most of which is unncessary. The main bit of the book lasts only 20 pages, and then that takes you to the end of the book.

Whilst I get the idea of the book, it could have been a lot better. But then, because it was Arthur C Clarke’s last book, if it wasn’t his last, it possibly would have been a lot better.

Note to self: stay away from collaborative fiction. It always disappoints.

Threelight’s Verdict: 6/10

Comments (0)

By scribblings, February 3, 2011 6:17 pm

I’ve read this book previously back when I first got the book, but decided a few weeks ago to re-read it, mainly to refresh my memory with the subject matter. It seems like a completely different book than what I remember it to be. My memory of it was something like this: people discover and settle in a new area, they are in cabins and stuff and have to fend for themselves, and then are taken over by the English, and their history is erased from popular culture.

Well, it’s actually a different book, with loads of historical, interesting facts in it. A few include why Wall Street is called Wall Street (build a wall?), why Broadway is called Broadway, and the lesser known fact that it is because of the Dutch that Americans call their biscuits cookies. There’s a treasure trove of interesting information in the book, and certainly a better book than what I thought it would be. There are a few names I recognise: Peter Stuyvesant (actually the name of a cigarette when I was in South Africa – the Dutch used to make cigarettes in the past anyway). Long Island was also always called Long Island.

It shows as well how much history we don’t know, that most times, and the book does make the point, that history is always written by the victors. But the reason why New York (once called New Amsterdam, by the way) is so multi-cultural, is because it was multi-cultural to begin with, and the idea of tolerance and the ability to practice your religion freely, why that is because of the Dutch, and which spread from New York to other parts of the British Colony in America at the time. Very interesting.

Threelights Verdict: 9/10

One of the best history books I’ve read.

Comments (0)

By scribblings, January 18, 2011 10:16 pm

If there’s one author who I’ve followed for all of my adult life, it’s Raymond E Feist. Apart from his books which he has co-authored (including a range of really ridiculous “tie-in” type novels), I’ve enjoyed most of them. There was a number of books, including the previous 2 or 3, which I didn’t enjoy enough. I have invested quite a lot in the books, always getting the first editions when they came out, either as gifts or going out to the nearest Waterstones and getting it myself. I’ll do exactly the same when the new book comes out on 29th March.

I remember picking up the first book, Magician, when I was getting ready to go into hospital for some surgery when I was a teenager, and stayed with them ever since. I remember getting one book from my brother, and that books followed me everywhere I went, when it was given to me in a pub during one of my birthday celebrations, where I got absolutely hammered. The book survived in one piece.

I know for a fact that there are only three more books left in the Riftwar Cycle, and then Mr Feist will stop writing novels about the world he co-created to move on to other ideas he has. I have my doubts about whether he will write anything else; he’s made his money. But I know that there are these 3 books to go.

Feist’s writing tends to be a bit haphazard at times, and well, maybe a bit too simplistic. I know I can’t do any better (one of these days I’ll give it a try), but sometimes looking at a phrase or a sentence on the page, I could tell it was one that missed the editing stage, and just looks a bit out of place. But, the stories are good, and this one made me quite happy that I’d read it. It only took me about 2 weeks to read it (over New Year and at a time when I was more at work than at home), which is a bit of a record. Saying that, I can never seem to get into the latest books on first sitting. It always takes a few months of reading other books and then going back to Feist that I really enjoy them (or not, in the case of some). There’s nothing difficult about reading Feist’s books, but the style of writing may be a bit on the odd side.

This one book provides a clue about how it’s going to go. Loads of magic, a magician in mourning over the loss of two family members, and the usual ragtag bunch of people joining in the adventure. This books seems well-constructed, good plot, satisfying conclusion. May not be the conclusion it seems, but there you go.

The book  is the conclusion of a short 2 book cycle to set the scene. I have a good idea (I’m bound to get it wrong) about how it will all end, as long as it’s not “It’s all a dream” or “This and that didn’t happen”. Feist seems to be setting the scene for the end, which is coming in about 3 years, or approximately 900 pages.

I’m going to stay with all of this right to the end. I’ve come too far into the journey to stop now.

Threelight’s Verdict: 7/10

Comments (0)

By scribblings, December 16, 2010 1:00 am

Okay, I’ve read the other two before; namely “The Day Watch” and “The Night Watch”.

This one, I found relatively easy to read, even though it was a bit tough-going in places. The thing with translated books, and these ones in particular, is that the author will sometimes put words into his or her character’s mouths to voice a political opinion, maybe with one of the characters going on for quite a while about what is ailing the country.

It’s got a fairly simple story too, probably after the second one, “The Night Watch”. Then again, I was fairly angry with the second book, because the author had killed off a rather alluring female character, whom I liked from the first book…

Anyways, this is the usual “something wrong, so investigate it..” type of book. It has been said that these books are the Russian version of Harry Potter, and in places I would tend to agree. In others though, it’s very much orginal, and unique. I’m surprised someone hasn’t written a similar book solely for the English market. Spells, vampires, the works in this one.

So it’s quite good. I was surprised that I enjoyed it as much as the first. Apart from the aforementioned political rantings, and the fact that every single Russian knows their old poets and authors (then again it’s like England knowing about theirs, I suppose).

I have the last book in the series to read.Even though I have an edition that says it’s a trilogy, it’s really a tetraology. The books have been a runaway success in Lukyanenko’s native Russia, so he obviously decided to write one last book. I have a few more books to read before that one.

Threelight’s View: 8/10.