Rob, Rambling - A lot of things interest me...

Columbine, by Dave Cullen, is the defining narrative of what happened on April 20, 1999 in that school, the events leading up to it, and the aftermath. It is stunning in what it achieves, both in terms of the detail in which it delves into the events and the people, and in terms of the thoroughness of the research.

Cullen starts with a second-by-second, shot-by-shot walkthrough of the day itself, then jumps back and forwards in time to show how the killers developed their plan (and there was a plan), and then the police investigated the massacre.

Relying on the huge volume of documentation amassed by the police investigation, extensive interviews with the survivors, investigators and just about anyone connected with the shooting, and most dramatically using Harris and Klebold’s own words from their journals and videos, Cullen is able to reconstruct the entire sequence of events.

He does so in a clinical, unemotional way, but not so distant from the subject as to appear cold and disconnected. Indeed, it’s pretty easy to spot which people he feels the most sympathy for, usually those he has interviewed over and over again in the decade since the shooting. Sometimes he gets a bit too close to these people, and I couldn’t help but feel that they were given a touch too sentimental a going-over, but that’s a minor gripe.

Perhaps the most important part of the book is the debunking of the most commonly held myths surrounding Columbine, and particularly the killers’ motives. They weren’t Nazi-sympathisers, they weren’t outcasts, they weren’t bullied, they weren’t Jock-haters, they weren’t gay, they weren’t part of ‘The Trenchcoat Mafia’, they weren’t Marilyn Manson fans, and they weren’t warped by violent films and video games.

Cullen perhaps lets his mask slip a little when calling out the media for jumping to such conclusions and repeating them ad infinitum until we can no longer think of Columbine without the above mistruths clouding our judgement. He explains why this occurred, but criticises the media for failing to correct themselves as quickly as they spread the rumours.

There was no single cause, nothing on which to hang blame for the massacre, other than the killers themselves. Harris and Klebold, particularly Harris, were fucked up. For want of a better way of describing it, they were born evil. Harris was probably a psychopath, in the clinical sense, and Klebold’s depression manifested itself in fits of rage.

Cullen strains to make the point that the parents aren’t to blame, and nor is anything else. He fully subscribes to the idea that some people are mentally ill in this manner, and some of those people act on their psychopathic impulses with horrifying results.

And the horrors at Columbine could’ve been worse. A lot worse.

I was completely unaware that the entire plan was to blow up the school, and everyone inside it. The guns were to shoot those fleeing the burning building. There were even extra bombs timed to go off in the car park when the police and media arrived.

It was only through the (relative) ineptitude of Harris and Klebold’s bomb-making skills that no more than the 13 died. The plan was to make McVeigh’s exploits look mild in comparison.

And the killing was designed to be indiscriminate. Harris just wanted to kill humans, no matter who they were. They didn’t target jocks, the religious or anyone else. They only targeted everyone.

As Cullen points out, “of course, Eric would enjoy killing jocks, too, along with niggers, spics, fags, and every other group he railed against.” This is probably the most disturbing aspect of the book, that someone can wish death upon every single other person on the planet.

The investigators and the media wanted to leap upon a why for the massacre, but for many years this couldn’t be provided. So many other theories were put forward, as listed above. Maybe the fact that it was indiscriminate killing was too horrifying a theory to put in print, to put into the public consciousness.

Because if it’s indiscriminate, how can we protect against it? That’s a real fear for many people.

I think we forget just how much this event, this massacre, changed society. Yes, something like 9/11 changed air travel and international relations forever, but Columbine created a complete distrust of the younger generation, which has yet to fade. Parents and the elder generation actively fear the young, the teenagers, nowadays.

But if this book does nothing else, it says that you can’t fear a generation, no more than you can fear a race, a kinsfolk, a religion. Certain people are just fucked up, and as much as we try to help them, or to protect against their impact, we can’t do so 100%.

The survivors whose stories are detailed in this book are its saving grace, in terms of a positive message. Almost every single one has grown beyond the effects of the shooting, and not it let define their lives. It brings a tear to your eye to read passages describing someone learning to talk, to walk, to feel again, but they do it.

They do it because they must, because they won’t let the actions of a mad-man dictate their lives for them.

Some do fall into the trap of letting it rule them. One father who lost his son has become a relentless campaigner for not forgiving, for not forgetting, and for pretty much seeking vengeance. His story is sad, to be honest, because he’s lost some of his humanity.

I can’t begin to fully describe the detail that this book goes into, as it is exhaustive. Journals are laid bare, videos are transcribed, police reports are pored over. I doubt that any line in the book hasn’t been fact-checked a hundred times over, and it’s this level of research that gives it its authority.

This is how every single-subject book should be: scholarly, yet journalistic. Detached, yet so vivid in its descriptions and eye for detail that you’re practically inside the heads of each person on the page.

It’s beautiful, but horrifying.

Columbine, by Dave Cullen, is the defining narrative of what happened on April 20, 1999 in that school, the events leading up to it, and the aftermath. It is stunning in what it achieves, both in terms of the detail in which it delves into the events and the people, and in terms of the thoroughness of the research.

Cullen starts with a second-by-second, shot-by-shot walkthrough of the day itself, then jumps back and forwards in time to show how the killers developed their plan (and there was a plan), and then the police investigated the massacre.

Relying on the huge volume of documentation amassed by the police investigation, extensive interviews with the survivors, investigators and just about anyone connected with the shooting, and most dramatically using Harris and Klebold’s own words from their journals and videos, Cullen is able to reconstruct the entire sequence of events.

He does so in a clinical, unemotional way, but not so distant from the subject as to appear cold and disconnected. Indeed, it’s pretty easy to spot which people he feels the most sympathy for, usually those he has interviewed over and over again in the decade since the shooting. Sometimes he gets a bit too close to these people, and I couldn’t help but feel that they were given a touch too sentimental a going-over, but that’s a minor gripe.

Perhaps the most important part of the book is the debunking of the most commonly held myths surrounding Columbine, and particularly the killers’ motives. They weren’t Nazi-sympathisers, they weren’t outcasts, they weren’t bullied, they weren’t Jock-haters, they weren’t gay, they weren’t part of ‘The Trenchcoat Mafia’, they weren’t Marilyn Manson fans, and they weren’t warped by violent films and video games.

Cullen perhaps lets his mask slip a little when calling out the media for jumping to such conclusions and repeating them ad infinitum until we can no longer think of Columbine without the above mistruths clouding our judgement. He explains why this occurred, but criticises the media for failing to correct themselves as quickly as they spread the rumours.

There was no single cause, nothing on which to hang blame for the massacre, other than the killers themselves. Harris and Klebold, particularly Harris, were fucked up. For want of a better way of describing it, they were born evil. Harris was probably a psychopath, in the clinical sense, and Klebold’s depression manifested itself in fits of rage.

Cullen strains to make the point that the parents aren’t to blame, and nor is anything else. He fully subscribes to the idea that some people are mentally ill in this manner, and some of those people act on their psychopathic impulses with horrifying results.

And the horrors at Columbine could’ve been worse. A lot worse.

I was completely unaware that the entire plan was to blow up the school, and everyone inside it. The guns were to shoot those fleeing the burning building. There were even extra bombs timed to go off in the car park when the police and media arrived.

It was only through the (relative) ineptitude of Harris and Klebold’s bomb-making skills that no more than the 13 died. The plan was to make McVeigh’s exploits look mild in comparison.

And the killing was designed to be indiscriminate. Harris just wanted to kill humans, no matter who they were. They didn’t target jocks, the religious or anyone else. They only targeted everyone.

As Cullen points out, “of course, Eric would enjoy killing jocks, too, along with niggers, spics, fags, and every other group he railed against.” This is probably the most disturbing aspect of the book, that someone can wish death upon every single other person on the planet.

The investigators and the media wanted to leap upon a why for the massacre, but for many years this couldn’t be provided. So many other theories were put forward, as listed above. Maybe the fact that it was indiscriminate killing was too horrifying a theory to put in print, to put into the public consciousness.

Because if it’s indiscriminate, how can we protect against it? That’s a real fear for many people.

I think we forget just how much this event, this massacre, changed society. Yes, something like 9/11 changed air travel and international relations forever, but Columbine created a complete distrust of the younger generation, which has yet to fade. Parents and the elder generation actively fear the young, the teenagers, nowadays.

But if this book does nothing else, it says that you can’t fear a generation, no more than you can fear a race, a kinsfolk, a religion. Certain people are just fucked up, and as much as we try to help them, or to protect against their impact, we can’t do so 100%.

The survivors whose stories are detailed in this book are its saving grace, in terms of a positive message. Almost every single one has grown beyond the effects of the shooting, and not it let define their lives. It brings a tear to your eye to read passages describing someone learning to talk, to walk, to feel again, but they do it.

They do it because they must, because they won’t let the actions of a mad-man dictate their lives for them.

Some do fall into the trap of letting it rule them. One father who lost his son has become a relentless campaigner for not forgiving, for not forgetting, and for pretty much seeking vengeance. His story is sad, to be honest, because he’s lost some of his humanity.

I can’t begin to fully describe the detail that this book goes into, as it is exhaustive. Journals are laid bare, videos are transcribed, police reports are pored over. I doubt that any line in the book hasn’t been fact-checked a hundred times over, and it’s this level of research that gives it its authority.

This is how every single-subject book should be: scholarly, yet journalistic. Detached, yet so vivid in its descriptions and eye for detail that you’re practically inside the heads of each person on the page.

It’s beautiful, but horrifying.

I finally got round to watching Inglourious Basterds yesterday, and it’s a little surprising that it took me so long to do so, given that I’m a huge fan of Tarantino’s work.

Unsurprisingly, Basterds was tremendous. It was witty, violent, intelligent, well-acted and beautifully shot. It had Tarantino trademarks, both visually and in the dialogue, but it also fits nicely within the WWII genre, although with a modern flourish.

The story starts off pretty simply: Brad Pitt’s character leads a team of Jewish American soldiers in Nazi-occupied France, aiming to spread fear by killing as many Nazis as they can in horrific ways. From there, various subplots and twists lead towards a grand finale in Paris, which is a fantastic set-piece.

As ever with a Tarantino film, the plot is sometimes secondary to the dialogue and character interaction. Basterds is very, very talky, and usually not in English. According to the IMDB, only 30% of the dialogue is in English, with French and German the dominant languages. I found it quite amusing to see how the German dialogue was translated in the subtitles, because they’re often saying something subtly different from the translation, resulting in a few untranslated jokes and lines.

Tarantino shows that he is a master of dialogue in whichever language is being used, alternately ratcheting up the tension and providing comic moments. He has a gift for knowing exactly how to set the mood of a scene, and when to turn that scene on its head.

The acting is solid too. I loved Brad Pitt’s ridiculous character, especially in the cinema foyer towards the end of the film. The man has incredible comic timing, but also nails the apathetic, Nazi-hating nature of his character. And that accent? Woah!

The two high-ranking German officers are menacing, clinical, and genuinely scary, as you would expect. Yes, a little bit of a caricature, but then in this film many characters are. Landa in particular is a great example of quiet, psychopathic authority, and someone who you just wouldn’t fuck with.

The rest of the support cast are solid, and I liked BJ Novak’s cameo which comes to the fore towards the end of the film. Daniel Bruhl cements his status as probably the best young German actor around, and Til Schweiger is criminally under-used.

It really is a great film, highly worth seeing. A lot of criticism was directed towards Tarantino after his part of Grindhouse, which I loved, for being a film about essentially nothing, about dialogue more than plot. Basterds has an absolutely rock-solid plot, and it feels as if not a single word is wasted at any point, despite the dialogue being strong and lengthy. It’s all necessary, which some of Grindhouse wasn’t.

Tarantino at his very best? Absolutely.

I finally got round to watching Inglourious Basterds yesterday, and it’s a little surprising that it took me so long to do so, given that I’m a huge fan of Tarantino’s work.

Unsurprisingly, Basterds was tremendous. It was witty, violent, intelligent, well-acted and beautifully shot. It had Tarantino trademarks, both visually and in the dialogue, but it also fits nicely within the WWII genre, although with a modern flourish.

The story starts off pretty simply: Brad Pitt’s character leads a team of Jewish American soldiers in Nazi-occupied France, aiming to spread fear by killing as many Nazis as they can in horrific ways. From there, various subplots and twists lead towards a grand finale in Paris, which is a fantastic set-piece.

As ever with a Tarantino film, the plot is sometimes secondary to the dialogue and character interaction. Basterds is very, very talky, and usually not in English. According to the IMDB, only 30% of the dialogue is in English, with French and German the dominant languages. I found it quite amusing to see how the German dialogue was translated in the subtitles, because they’re often saying something subtly different from the translation, resulting in a few untranslated jokes and lines.

Tarantino shows that he is a master of dialogue in whichever language is being used, alternately ratcheting up the tension and providing comic moments. He has a gift for knowing exactly how to set the mood of a scene, and when to turn that scene on its head.

The acting is solid too. I loved Brad Pitt’s ridiculous character, especially in the cinema foyer towards the end of the film. The man has incredible comic timing, but also nails the apathetic, Nazi-hating nature of his character. And that accent? Woah!

The two high-ranking German officers are menacing, clinical, and genuinely scary, as you would expect. Yes, a little bit of a caricature, but then in this film many characters are. Landa in particular is a great example of quiet, psychopathic authority, and someone who you just wouldn’t fuck with.

The rest of the support cast are solid, and I liked BJ Novak’s cameo which comes to the fore towards the end of the film. Daniel Bruhl cements his status as probably the best young German actor around, and Til Schweiger is criminally under-used.

It really is a great film, highly worth seeing. A lot of criticism was directed towards Tarantino after his part of Grindhouse, which I loved, for being a film about essentially nothing, about dialogue more than plot. Basterds has an absolutely rock-solid plot, and it feels as if not a single word is wasted at any point, despite the dialogue being strong and lengthy. It’s all necessary, which some of Grindhouse wasn’t.

Tarantino at his very best? Absolutely.

Just watched the final episode of The Wire. Epic. Absolutely epic. I can’t think of a single thread left undone, and the final montage was a delight.

I fully intend to write reams and reams about this show pretty soon, but suffice it to say that all day at work tomorrow I will be reading fan-sites, trivia, and everything else I can get my hands on about the show.

I refrained from doing so over the last few months, just in case I got even the merest hint of a spoiler, but now I can do so without a care in the world. No doubt there are a 1,001 things that I missed, especially foreshadowing and what-not, and it’s going to be interesting to think back to the early series and how certain things eventually panned out.

The only problem is deciding what to watch next.

It may only be the 14th of January in 2010, but I think I’ve just seen the best film of the decade. If I see another film that is better than this in the near future, I will be amazed.

‘Mugabe And The White African’ is a documentary following one white farming family as they try to take the Mugabe government to an international court to dispute the legality of the Zimbabwean land-grab programme of the last 10-15 years.

Whilst Mugabe and the farmer never meet face to face, Mugabe’s influence is felt heavily in their everyday life, from intimidation tactics by his war veterans to delaying tactics in court by his lawyers. The documentary uses voiceover excerpts from Mugabe’s speeches over the years to illustrate the sheer power that the man wields in the country.

Shot covertly and under major threat of being discovered, this truly is a harrowing tale of how a country can be absolutely destroyed by the megalomaniac tendencies of just one man.

I’m usually not one for hyperbole when it comes to reviewing and describing films, books, TV shows and the like, but this film is genuinely the best thing I’ve seen in many, many years. I’ve not felt an emotional connection to a film like this before, and I spent at least the whole final third with tears in my eyes and running down my cheeks.

It’s a film about bravery, about stoicism in the face of absolutely soul-crushing hatred, and about being prepared to sacrifice everything in order to fight the good fight. It’s also a film about family, about love and about love for one’s homeland.

Whilst I’ve learnt a lot about Zimbabwe over the last few years from the girlfriend and from getting interested in the subject, this film really did open my eyes to the levels of racism and strife that are being fermented in the country. The racism is something else, and for someone who has grown up in a multi-cultural society and doesn’t have a racist bone in his body, it is horrifying.

It genuinely blows my mind that people can base any kind of decision purely on someone’s skin colour, but Mugabe and his supporters have done just that for over 30 years. The white farmer(s) in the title aren’t old-school colonialists; they’re all born and bred Zimbabweans, trying to work a farm in the country.

They employ and support a community of over 500 people, and it’s the effect on these kinds of people that the land-grab scheme just does not think about. The land is given to some friend of the government, and then left to ruin. Not only are the white family forcibly evicted and basically kicked out of the country, but their employees and their families are left to ruin.

The whole (tiny) cinema was sniffing and crying throughout, with some scenes truly disturbing and heartbreaking, but necessary. It doesn’t pull any punches, but at the same time it doesn’t dwell on the negatives more than it has to.

If it is on anywhere near you, track it down and go see it. Get the DVD, download it, watch it on TV. This is an important film, one which truly displays the lowest lows and highest highs of human nature.

I could go on about this film for many more paragraphs, such an impact has it had on me. I’m still seeing the faces in front of me, hearing their voices and living their story.

This film needs to be seen. It needs a bigger audience and it deserves one.

Well, it’s that time of the year decade: best of lists are ten a penny, endlessly discussed and criticised. By their very nature, they are subjective in the extreme, and also limited by what that person/group has actually seen, heard and read.

Nevertheless, in no particular order, here are my favourite films of the noughties. In compiling this list, I’ve realised that I watched a lot of films this decade, and I’ve watched a lot of good films in that time. Whittling this list down has been difficult, but I’ve tried to really pick the ones that have stayed in my memory for years since I first saw them, and/or have stood up to repeated viewings.

There are some obvious choices, but also some not-so-obvious films too. My tastes range from fairly juvenile comedy to heavier, wordy dramas, and via most places in between. As I said, it’s a hugely subjective list, but in no particular order:

  • Anchorman: Probably the funniest film of the decade. Ferrell and the ‘Frat Pack’ at their peak.

  • Battle Royale: Ultra-violent, yes. Powerful message, definitely.

  • Infernal Affairs: So much better than the Hollywood remake, The Departed.

  • Elephant: Exquisitely crafted, and gloriously understated.

  • City Of God: A fine exploration of how paths differ from the same background within Brazil’s slums.

  • Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind: Sci-fi taking on relationships, with Jim Carrey’s best performance of the decade.

  • Closer: The rise and fall of interweaving relationships, really capturing human interaction, and how we can be so cruel to one another.

  • Zoolander: Effortlessly funny, camp as fuck and absolutely hilarious.

  • No Country For Old Men: An action film with brains and insight.

  • Shaun Of The Dead: Invented a new genre: zom-com. Britain’s funniest moments on screen.

  • Sin City: Hyper-stylised, hyper-violent, with a great ensemble cast.

  • All Or Nothing: A melancholy study of a British family, coming apart at the seams but somehow holding together. Massively under-rated.

  • Vexille: A random little CGI-anime vision of the future in Japan.

  • The Lord Of The Rings Trilogy: Does this even need an explanation? Epic in every sense of the word.

  • Mulholland Drive: Twisty, turny, suspenseful, gorgeously shot with one of the best scores I can think of.

  • 28 Days Later: The other side of British zombie films: bloodthirsty and rampaging. Worth it for the shots of a deserted London.

  • Bowling For Columbine: One of the most important films of the decade, a documentary with a shot aimed squarely at America’s right.

  • Solaris: Slow-burner that is stunning visually and has some great performances.

  • The Grudge (Japanese original version): Scared the living crap out of me for days afterwards.

  • Kill Bill Vols 1 and 2: Tarantino’s peak, and Uma Thurman at her best too.

  • Thirteen: What does it mean to be a teenager nowadays? Again, under-rated.

  • Timecode: Experimental cinema that also works in terms of the stories shown on the four screens.

  • District 9: 2009’s best film, for my money. Apartheid in a truly xenophobic setting.

  • Dear Frankie: A single mother’s lies to her young deaf son are in danger of being found out. Moving, and brought tears to my eyes.

  • Der Untergang (Downfall): I’ve never heard a cinema so quiet as at the end of this film.

  • Night Watch: Matrix-inspired Russian vampires and fantasy in a techno-action-thriller.

  • Team America: World Police: Puppets featuring in the hardest-hitting satire of the decade.

  • Good Night, And Good Luck: A history lesson in celluloid form.

  • Superbad: I laughed constantly throughout this film, even on the fifth viewing. Ridiculously funny.

  • In The Loop: British politics and spin satirised ruthlessly, and you have to feel quite accurately too.

  • Avatar: A massive technical leap forwards, even if the plot was a touch weak.

  • Waiting: Practically ignored low-budget comedy that had one of Ryan Reynolds’ best outings.

  • Death In Gaza: An absolutely haunting end to a documentary about Gaza.

Of these, I’d say that the ones that really stand out as my favourites are Battle Royale, LOTR, Anchorman, Der Untergang, and All Or Nothing.


Reblogged from: leitch
Originally posted on: The Will Leitch Experience

So, Avatar.

It’s been a couple of days since I walked out of the cinema in a state of awe and having been visually overwhelmed, and I’ve managed to gather together my thoughts on the film somewhat coherently.

I’ll come straight out with the executive summary and say that it was a very, very good film. The plot was somewhat thin and predictable, but I can’t help but feel that what I’ve seen is the future of cinema.

The story centres on an alien planet on which humans are involved in a mining operation, with a large military support presence to counteract the indigenous population that threatens its expansion. A massive current-day allegory, obviously, and one which is followed quickly by a pretty strong environmental message too.

The military-industrial complex wants to mine right under the main alien village, and so they have created some empty shell alien bodies of which human minds are temporarily given control through a techno mind-meld type device. Until now, only scientists have been given the opportunity to do so, but through a (fairly formulaic plot device) mishap, a soldier (Jake Sully) is given the chance.

Oh, and he’s disabled from the waist down too, so his first delight in the new body is being able to walk again. He gradually connects with the alien society, becoming ever closer to them and their ability to be at one with the nature around them.

Of course, this leads to friction back within the human community, as well as within the alien people who distrust him too. It all sets up for a massive final act, which is more action-y than the preceding two-thirds.

Re-reading this as I write it, I can see how the plot may be viewed as simple, or formulaic. It is a little, I guess, but it carries the film forwards well enough. Yes, it has the type of foreshadowing elements that you’d expect from an action film, and some clumsy character development, but the film moves swiftly and without too many holes.

The character development of Sully is a bit quick for my tastes, especially when I compare it to the somewhat similar path that Wikus van de Merwe takes in District 9. Admittedly, their reasons for adjusting to the alien societies are a bit different, but van de Merwe’s character has a slower, more nuanced change within him.

But the film isn’t necessarily about the plot and the characters; it’s about the visuals, and the overall impact of the style of the drama on screen.

Thankfully, it is utterly, utterly fantastic. It is stunning, in terms of the world that has been created, and technically it has taken cinema to a whole new level. It doesn’t feel like just another CGI-fest; it genuinely feels like you’re watching something which happened and has been captured on a real camera.

Various attempts at doing computer-generated faces recently have fallen into the ‘uncanny valley’ as they get ever closer to being photo-real. Our brains can just tell that they are fake, and this means that the illusion is destroyed, as your brain continually refuses to accept the faces as capable of truly portraying emotions or reactions.

Avatar overcomes this. At no point did I feel that there was a massive distinction between the live-action and the CGI footage. It’s that good. Weta Workshop, who also worked on LOTR, are at the absolute top of the special effects game, and this work is truly exceptional.

There aren’t a huge number of scenes in which the aliens and humans directly physically interact, but even in these you really struggle to see the divide, so well is the whole scene visually interwoven.

And it’s not just the aliens themselves that are technically astounding. The landscapes, the forests, the animals, everything is incredible to see on the big screen. I can’t think of a single moment where I slipped out of the film and realised that I was watching something fake.

The use of 3-D is also expertly handled. It’s not gimmicky, it’s not overwhelming, and it definitely adds something to the overall impact of the film. The opening shot involves a little 3-D, just to make it clear that you’re watching a 3-D film, but after 20 minutes or so you barely notice it for standing out, if you’ll excuse the awful pun.

Even in fast-paced action scenes, the use of 3-D is incredibly well done, not distracting you at all from the intensity of the images before you. And they also add something to the slower, more poetic scenes, giving a little stylistic twirl to what could otherwise be a bit of a pause in the plot.

I really do feel as if I’ve seen an evolution in cinema. 3-D is going to be massive, although not everything is going to be executed as well as Cameron has done in Avatar. Similarly, the overcoming of the uncanny valley in terms of human(oid) faces is a massive step forward. Compare the visuals of this film to those Final Fantasy which was at the forefront of CGI technology 8 years ago. The leap forwards has been astounding.

This film deserves to be seen on a big screen. The plot’s a bit thin, but it’s enough to provide a foundation for what is simply the most visually impressive film I’ve ever seen.

With the exception of Alice in Wonderland, all of the trailers before Avatar last night were 3D offerings, mostly animation. It really does look as if 2010 is going to be the year of 3D in the cinema.

Shrek 4 looks particularly impressive (and funny too), whilst How To Train Your Dragon seems to be one of those that will be technically very good but crappy plot-wise.

Add to this Toy Story 3(D) and a couple of trashy horror remakes, and it seems as if we won’t be able to move for 3D films next year. And I’m sure the film studios are a big fan of this, as they can charge a couple more quid on each ticket.

I thought that the use of 3D in Avatar itself was excellent, not so distracting as to repeatedly hit you over the head with the reminder that you’re watching something 3D, but subtly used for maximum advantage. And it really works.

I’ll write a bit more on it in my longer review of Avatar, but it genuinely added something to the overall visual impact of the film.

The king is dead. Long live the king!

In one word: tremendous.

I’ve got a much longer review brewing in my head, but my instant reaction is to be very impressed. Definitely worth seeing.

In one word: tremendous.

I’ve got a much longer review brewing in my head, but my instant reaction is to be very impressed. Definitely worth seeing.

8 months ago, I posted a review of The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo by Stieg Larsson. That was the first of a trilogy, and tonight I just finished reading the final part. It was interesting to go back and read my thoughts on the first book and see how they compare to the trilogy as a whole.

Firstly, the final book as an individual novel was thoroughly gripping, and it kept me hooked from start to finish. There were sufficient levels of twistiness, with the requisite sex and violence thrown in for good measure. Try as he might to avoid it, Larsson just can’t help himself from letting his words quickly turn sexy and dirty very quickly.

The characters from the previous two novels stayed true to form, and in a couple of cases were fleshed out much better. The two main protagonists, Blomkvist and Salander (the eponymous anti-heroine) didn’t really develop too much, but they had such rich textures from the preceding pages that this was unnecessary. You knew what to expect from them, and they delivered.

One of the new characters is a fitness-freak policewoman, and it is on her that Larsson seems to get a little carried away with his descriptions. He positively drools over her muscled frame and athletic build, and it struck me as I was reading that this was the second crime/thriller trilogy I’d read in which the author introduces a physically strong female character in the final book.

Thomas Harris did the same trick in Hannibal, with the character Margot. Admittedly, the policewoman here isn’t a full-on bodybuilder like Margot, but repeated reference is made to her muscle tone and the fact that she is stronger than most men. Is it the case that these authors can’t write a more normal female character, or is it that they have a bit of a fetish for this type of woman?

Speaking of fetishisation, it’s pretty clear that Blomkvist is the ideal which Larsson wants to be. Larsson (before his untimely death) was an investigative journalist, just like Blomkvist, and it has to be said that Blomkvist really doesn’t have any negative qualities to his character. He’s dedicated to his work, steadfastly loyal, and an absolute ladies man. It really is a superhero-esque role of sorts.

I can’t really say that there were any characters I actively disliked in terms of their portrayals. Yes, of course there were “baddies”, but they were pretty well-rounded too. In most of them, you could see their dilemmas in deciding to go through with certain actions, and there weren’t too many single-minded cold-blooded individuals.

What can I say about the plot without giving too much away? Well, it very much is an immediate follow-on from The Girl Who Played With Fire, much more so than that was from the first book, and it deals heavily with events in that part of the trilogy. Even 500 pages in, it’s still making huge references to the second book, which is always satisfying when you’ve invested so much time in the characters and plot.

I felt that the resolution of so many plot lines was done very well, and there weren’t really any loose threads by the time I finished reading. And Larsson does an equally good job of keeping you on your toes with a few twists here and there.

Even in the sections where you already know how it’s going to turn out, the writing is of sufficiently high quality to keep you locked in and enjoying it. It’s mostly dialogue which does this task, although his descriptions of the fast-moving action scenes are equally good.

It’s not going to be too long before Hollywood snaps this up, although I understand that a film of the first book has been made in Swedish already. I really hope that the films remain in Sweden, as the country itself is a huge part of the novels, particularly this last one. I can see how certain US institutions and bodies would fulfil similar roles, but it just wouldn’t work overall, I feel.

This trilogy has been criticised as being a bit light, or a bit cheesy, but I have to disagree. These books are nothing like that Dan Brown crap. Yes, they are crime thrillers, but the writing is so much better than Brown’s, and the themes dealt with are much more interesting.

It sounds horrible to say, given that the author died before the trilogy’s publication, but I’m glad that there won’t be a fourth novel in the “trilogy”, as happened with Night Watch. The final novel there was the weakest by a mile, and really left a bit of a sour taste in the mouth, whereas here Larsson has gone out on a high.

8 months ago, I posted a review of The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo by Stieg Larsson. That was the first of a trilogy, and tonight I just finished reading the final part. It was interesting to go back and read my thoughts on the first book and see how they compare to the trilogy as a whole.

Firstly, the final book as an individual novel was thoroughly gripping, and it kept me hooked from start to finish. There were sufficient levels of twistiness, with the requisite sex and violence thrown in for good measure. Try as he might to avoid it, Larsson just can’t help himself from letting his words quickly turn sexy and dirty very quickly.

The characters from the previous two novels stayed true to form, and in a couple of cases were fleshed out much better. The two main protagonists, Blomkvist and Salander (the eponymous anti-heroine) didn’t really develop too much, but they had such rich textures from the preceding pages that this was unnecessary. You knew what to expect from them, and they delivered.

One of the new characters is a fitness-freak policewoman, and it is on her that Larsson seems to get a little carried away with his descriptions. He positively drools over her muscled frame and athletic build, and it struck me as I was reading that this was the second crime/thriller trilogy I’d read in which the author introduces a physically strong female character in the final book.

Thomas Harris did the same trick in Hannibal, with the character Margot. Admittedly, the policewoman here isn’t a full-on bodybuilder like Margot, but repeated reference is made to her muscle tone and the fact that she is stronger than most men. Is it the case that these authors can’t write a more normal female character, or is it that they have a bit of a fetish for this type of woman?

Speaking of fetishisation, it’s pretty clear that Blomkvist is the ideal which Larsson wants to be. Larsson (before his untimely death) was an investigative journalist, just like Blomkvist, and it has to be said that Blomkvist really doesn’t have any negative qualities to his character. He’s dedicated to his work, steadfastly loyal, and an absolute ladies man. It really is a superhero-esque role of sorts.

I can’t really say that there were any characters I actively disliked in terms of their portrayals. Yes, of course there were “baddies”, but they were pretty well-rounded too. In most of them, you could see their dilemmas in deciding to go through with certain actions, and there weren’t too many single-minded cold-blooded individuals.

What can I say about the plot without giving too much away? Well, it very much is an immediate follow-on from The Girl Who Played With Fire, much more so than that was from the first book, and it deals heavily with events in that part of the trilogy. Even 500 pages in, it’s still making huge references to the second book, which is always satisfying when you’ve invested so much time in the characters and plot.

I felt that the resolution of so many plot lines was done very well, and there weren’t really any loose threads by the time I finished reading. And Larsson does an equally good job of keeping you on your toes with a few twists here and there.

Even in the sections where you already know how it’s going to turn out, the writing is of sufficiently high quality to keep you locked in and enjoying it. It’s mostly dialogue which does this task, although his descriptions of the fast-moving action scenes are equally good.

It’s not going to be too long before Hollywood snaps this up, although I understand that a film of the first book has been made in Swedish already. I really hope that the films remain in Sweden, as the country itself is a huge part of the novels, particularly this last one. I can see how certain US institutions and bodies would fulfil similar roles, but it just wouldn’t work overall, I feel.

This trilogy has been criticised as being a bit light, or a bit cheesy, but I have to disagree. These books are nothing like that Dan Brown crap. Yes, they are crime thrillers, but the writing is so much better than Brown’s, and the themes dealt with are much more interesting.

It sounds horrible to say, given that the author died before the trilogy’s publication, but I’m glad that there won’t be a fourth novel in the “trilogy”, as happened with Night Watch. The final novel there was the weakest by a mile, and really left a bit of a sour taste in the mouth, whereas here Larsson has gone out on a high.

About

Londoner, thinking and writing far too much about far too many random things. Wannabe photo-/videographer of my life. More likely to be found propping up a bar somewhere.

I also write about football.

This mess is powered by Tumblr, on which there are many things I like. You can also ask me anything.

RSS | Archives | Random

Contact

Twitter

Tags

Type: text, photo, photoset, picture, video, audio, link, quote, chat, reblog, question, ask me anything
Style: ranting, random, happy, funny, cynicism, meme, review, rambling, list
Self: self reference, self portrait, self made, self mocking, self flattery, self confidence, introspection, gpoyw
People:
girlfriend, family, sister, parents, friends, relationships, ex, housemates
Happenings: drinking, work, party, bed talk, sleep, sex, travel, holiday
Culture: internet, music, food, twitter, films, books, comedy, tv, news,
Subjects: london, money, media, newspapers, drugs, celebs, politics,
Sport: sport, football, arsenal, rugby, athletics, gym, exercise
Random: dirty old man, swearing,
Meta: tumblr, tumbling about tumbling, tumblr crush, blogging, tumblr people