REVIEW: District 9

The backstory to the making of District 9 is fast approaching folkloric proportions.

Peter Jackson (naturally the PJ of Lord of the Rings fame) wanted to work with South African, Neil Blomkamp. The intended project become bogged down as I understand things often do in the film world. Jackson instead now encouraged Blomkamp to redo an earlier short film he had made about aliens appearing over Johannsburg. District 9 resulted.

The first third or so is shot in documentary format, the moving camera and 'unscripted' appearance giving a real immediacy to the audience before moving seamlessly into the film as such.

This is not a happy film. The Death Star is not destroyed and Princess Leia giving medals to the victorious Luke Skywalker and Han Solo. This is a dark film. It looks at issues like seggragation, prejudice and the willingness of the authorities to be ammoral, especially when they have something to gain.

Following the appearance of alien creatures, nicnamed prawns from their similarity to those crustraceans beloved of our dining during summer, the visitors end up in a major encampment. With this film set in near-future Johannasburg, the irony of setting up post-apartheid forced separation hits the viewer with as subtly as a brick. However this does not detract from what is more important, the story telling.

The action slowly builds up and once that pace is achieved, just rockets along. I hardly moved at all in my seat while watching, and as the film finished only some 40 minutes ago as I draft this entry, my dodgy knees are still suffering from being locked in the one position for far too long. It takes a lot to get me of all people, to sit that still for that long.

We are left with an ending that is not an ending, but could be seen as set-up for a sequel.

The screenplay was written by Blomkamp with Terri Tatchell. I'd love to have a read as I imagine it would be one of those scripts that reads as well as it ends up being shot.

NOT a film for the kids and not one for adults who like soft, fluffy endings.

As a dedicated sci fi freak and lover of all good story telling, this gets a big thumbs up from me!

REVIEW: Pelham 123

I'm not a great fan of remakes. If the original was any good, I tend to agree with Samuel L Jackson when he was first approached about starring in the remake of Shaft: “what's wrong with the one we've got?”

I remember The Taking of Pelham 123 as a fast-paced thrill of a film. Raymond Shaw was memorable as the clinically cold, calculating criminal, holding a train of hostages for ransom in the New York Underground.

With that original being such a good film, I had to ask, why remake it? Unless you can improve on the original, then why not leave well enough alone? The exception to that rule, to my mind, is when a filmmaker can bring a new dimensino to things without detracting from the original story.

It was with some trepidation that I went to see Pelham 123, the remake starring John Travolta. While I long ago accepted that the mature Travolta can definitely act, part of me still associates him with Saturday Night Fever, or worse, with Grease - bland vomit-inducing. A part of me also still remembers him as Vinnie Barbarino in Welcome Back Kotter (am I really that old?). How was Director Tony Scott going to address things. Was it just going to be a cheap copy? The original story butchered beyond recognition?

Thankfully, my fears were not realised.

Travolta was menacing from the moment he first appears at the start of the film. Kudos to the make-up people who ensured that the tattoo on his neck actually looked properly aged and not just obviously slapped on for the role as is too often the case. Verisimiltude folks!

Whereas Shaw's portrayal of the villain was a man always in control, even when things were getting away from him, Travolta's is far wilder. He goes off into rants at the drop of a hat, to the point of foaming at the mouth. Yet before killing people, he tends to apologise for what he is about to do.

It is easy to forget beforehand that the film also stars Denzel Washington who was an excellent counter-point to Travolta's character. There was nothing particularly stand-out about his performance but then we have been spoiled over the years with solid-to-excellent performances by Washington, film after film. Both Travolta and Washington were credible and believable in their roles, giving that all-important suspension of disbelief by the audience.

A good supporting cast rounded things out, particularly with James Gandolfini as a jaded New Your City Mayor, who cannot wait for his term to end so he can get the hell out of the place.

The film managed to retain all the original crispness of the original but deepened things by a greater exploration of the characters involved. I won't say that this is better than the original, but Pelham 123 is definitely worth seeing in its own right.

Well done to the original novel's author, John Godey, and scriptwriter, Brian Helgeland.

This one gets a big thumbs up from me!

REVIEW: Watchmen - what a film!

I had heard that Watchmen was a good film but I never got around to seeing it at the cinema. I recently bought a copy of it on DVD, entirely on a whim. Oh wow - am I now regretting not going to see it on the big screen!

This film simply blew me away. As a rule, the idea of Superheros who are able to maintain their secret identity by putting on a simple mask that just covers their eyes, really gets my goat. Like, who can honestly believe the idea that Superman has been able to hide as Clark Kent for all these years by simply combing his hair over and slipping on a pair of hornrim glasses. But the power of Watchmen drew me in, entirely suspending disbelief.

The camera work was brilliantly shot, with scenes and shots blending just so seamlessly, with even moves into CGI not being noticeable, apart from the obvious exception of the bright blue Dr Manhattan.

Jackie Earle Haley was brilliant as Rorschach, the near-sociopath. The power of his performance was simply amazing. Jessica Alba and other established gorgeous young babes of the screen were considedered for the role of Laurie - Silk Spectre II - but were considered too well known to be taken seriously in the role. Instead Malin Åkerman was cast in the role. And it was a great move. She was equally as wonderful in her way, but also looked hawt!

What an different view of superheros was presented - dark, dangerous. But that was what the original Batmen was like - practically a vigelante. But I didn't see the willing sacrifice of some 15 million people to save the world even remotely coming.

I am not generally a great lover of film treatments of comics and graphic novels. All too often they are either soft and fluffy, lacking the original edge, or end up lacking all credibility. I have not read the originals but there was nothing soft or fluffy about this film, nor was it lacking credibility in the slightest. This was hard, edgy stuff and absolutely compelling viewing.

This one is a winner!
%

Rejection doesn't have to hurt

I received another rejection the other day. Nothing new there. But this one had some positives in it.

Hi Ross, we have decided not to use XXX for the XXX anthology. It's a good story with good characters, prose, pacing, etc., and, in fact, was among the final few we selected from the hundreds of stories we received where we'll select the stories that'll go into the anthology.

So it appears that I made the short list out of hundreds received. That is nice to know. After another quick review, it has been sent out to another publication.

The original story was in fact penned some years ago. And it was presented as derivative crap. Not surprisingly, it was rejected. The fact that a revised version of the story has made it down the final shortlist of an international anthology speaks volumes for how much my writing has improved, not least of which being my appreciation of what a story actually is.

I also have several other short stories out with editors at the moment along with a speculative poem and more getting close to being ready to be sent out.

Sadly, my romantic comedy film script has stalled badly. I thought I would have difficulties with the romantic bits but instead it has been the drama that posed problems in scripting. It has been shelved for the moment, but most definitely not forgotten.

REVIEW: Shatter by Michael Robotham

I came to appreciate Michael Robotham's writing not quite a year ago. His novels have a dark, psychological grit to them, in total contrast to the man himself when you meet him.

In Shatter, I think Robotham has reached a new high. Our returning protagonist, Joe O'Loughlin, is more human than ever, with the spectre of his Parkinson's Disease overhanging everything he does. The antagonist truly creeps me out. Having met and chatted to Robotham, it is so hard to equate that smiling, quietly spoken man with the dark, twisted antagonist he has conjured up. That is the mark of a true storyteller.

At times Shatter rather disturbed me as I saw just how the human spirit can be warped and then broken. But I just had to keep reading. The Sunday Telegraph described the novel as 'nail-biting suspense of the highest order.' They weren't kidding. This is true, edge-of-the-seat thriller material, full of characters so real that you can almost visualise them leaning over your shoulder as you read.

Robotham has created such a powerful and believable antagonist that about two-thirds of the way through reading, I found myself wondering 'how can they ever catch this bloke?'.

Underlying events is the question of what sort of world do we live in where the authorities sanction creation of a monster only to lose control of him. It makes you ask questions like just what does go on in places like Guantanamo? Or on the other side of the terrorism conflict for that matter.

This is powerful writing at its best. The only thing that I could fault was a minor copy-editing issue that slipped past editorial and proofreading.

Compelling, believable characters. An engaging plot that hooks you from the outset. First class writing. Definitely worth reading!

Shatter
Michael Robotham
Sphere
ISBN 978-0-7515-3731-4

revealing plot through dialogue is bad??

I have just received probably the strangest justification for rejection of a story that I have received yet. The editor concerned did not like the fact that I revealed plot through the dialogue. But that is showing the reader - would they have preferred that I just dump big chunks of exposition and narrative, telling the reader what is happening? Don't get me wrong - it wasn't just all dialogue and nothing else. There was a lot of action going with that dialogue. But according to this particular editor, revealing plot through dialogue is bad?

I've never heard of such a thing. Bloody nonsense in my opinion, but then they are just as entitled to their opinion as I am.

Some thoughts inspired by Sylvia Plath's poetry

Sylvia Plath had a short life - 1932-1963. She worked at her poetry for a number of years, but particularly in the last couple of years of her life.

Her husband, Ted Hughes, interestingly described her as rarely discarding a poem but continuing to work on it to get something out of it. Quoting Hughes, if she could not get a table out of the material, she was quite happy to get a chair or even a toy. The product for her was not so much a successful poem, as something that had temporarily exhausted her ingenuity.

I have been reading a lot of Plath's poetry lately. It is often very powerful in its observations. Consider the following extract from Mushrooms.

Overnight, very
Whitely, discretely,
Very quietly

Our toes, our noses
Take hold on the loam
Acquire the air

How can you fail to see mushrooms in your head, emerging, growing, on reading those lines? In my opinion, this is what makes that powerful verse.

To be able to write like that requires great observation of details in what surrounds us - something that every writer needs to be able to do. The writer's journal or notebook is good for aiding this. I am rarely without pen and paper to hand and scribble down all sorts of things that catch my eye. In theory these notes are all transcribed into my journal although I must admit to having been terribly slack on that front of late.

I was sitting outside as I first began to scribble these thoughts.

A Crimson Rosella (a red and blue type of parrot for my friends outside of Australia) was feeding on the remnants of a sunflower head in the garden, the seeds audibly cracking in its beak with sounds like the clacking of an old-fashioned typewriter. A large, black Chuff swooped down in a smooth glide to land on the edge of the bird bath, to watch me suspiciously before taking a drink. Its strange, yellow eye, looks like a solitary corn kernel in the middle of an ebony plate. A plucky Mudlark - a smallish bird in striking black and white - darted in close to my chair, checking the ground for edibles before darting away again. A Noisy Miner - related to the Asian or Indian Mynah - perched on the edge of a flower pot, glares around. This is his domain! How dare these other birds intrude!

Moving so quickly that the eye is hard pressed to distinguish the actual movements, a skink darted across the pavers, from one bit of shelter to another, its body all sinewy movement in one moment and frozen stillness the next.

All fascinating little observations in only a few minutes. Several poems have resulted from these and I look forward to using those observations in creating a sense of place in a future story.