Film: District 9

I've tried to watch this film several times, but always been variously interrupted by takeaways arriving, needing to leave as it was not my house, my mother pitching a fit about wanting to watch something easy and so on. So I've seen the documentary-style beginning quite a few times and always thought it was a really interesting idea. I think it's pretty difficult to make alien plots original these days, but this is by far the most outside-of-the-box approach I've seen. For more details on the plot, there's the IMDb page and TV Tropes (which, as always, is far more entertaining).

What I Liked:
As mentioned above, the approach to aliens is truly off-the-wall and unique - if you went into this film knowing absolutely nothing about it, you would not know what the bloody hell was going on for a long time; but not because it's confusing, just because it's like nothing you've ever seen before. That said, the film does an excellent job of using something decidedly not-ordinary to comment on Big Issues that are upsettingly ordinary - none of the metaphorical aspects are too heavy-handed, but very perceptive and clever. Though it's a small thing (and repeatedly lampshaded in the film), I really appreciated the action being set in Johannesburg, rather than your standard New York or London. Also, I've never really been a big fan of mockumentaries, but I really enjoyed the way this was filmed - the documentary elements were used brilliantly towards the beginning of the film, but you don't notice when they start being phased out to make way for more traditional film-making - again, very subtle and very clever.

What I Didn't Like:

I'm not really sure whether I actually considered this a good or bad thing, but the film-makers, clever, introspective and subtle though they were, were certainly not above your standard action movie shoot-'em-up. What I definitely DID object to was watching the main character PEEL HIS OWN FINGERNAILS OFF. That was very much a:

moment.

****

(My laptop is allowing gifs again! I'm sure you're all thrilled.)

Update #2

 Steel Magnolias

So for the first half of this film, I was very much like "...what?" But I had been warned that would happen. It was all big hair, Deep Saaaaath Draaaawls and, shall we say, just a touch right-wing. But you have to stick with these things. The laughs were partly in that kind of I'm-mildly-horrified-by-these-people kind of way, but Shirley Maclaine's character was a superb lovable bitch, and Sally Field is just the Queen of Everything. Also, I love Dolly Parton. There. I said it.

It did get a little bit too schmaltzy at the end, and whilst I saw where Julia Roberts's character was coming from, I still found her frustrating for most of the film. But whatever schmaltziness crept into the end of the film was overruled by Sally Field's "I just want to hit something!" monologue. What. A. Woman. 

***

The Art of Getting By

Yet another mildly disappointing foray into the world of indie cinema. When I saw the trailers for this, I thought it was going to be a touching, charming, The Perks of Being a Wallflower-esque tale of the difficulties of being a teenager who doesn't live in a John Hughes movie. And whilst it did have an interesting leading character, some good background from both of the 'mother' characters, and a nice touch with the years-worth-of-homework-in-three-weeks thing, ultimately my thoughts were:

Because to be honest, through most of the film I was silently screaming at the main character to just get a bloody grip. I mean come on, kid, stop pouting and get over yourself. 

**

One Day

I have to say, this film was better than I remembered it being - the one-liners are very well crafted, and there's just a general air of wittiness to the whole story. The characters are what make this, film and book; the angrily political, Northern, takes-no-shit would-be writer is a character so well put together not even Anne Hathaway's wincingly bad Yorkshire accent can ruin her. The male lead (Jim Sturgess) manages to successfully rattle though roguishly charming, total asswipe, long-suffering husband and normal person with a constant childish adorability - which is character development at it's very best.

What kind of lets the story down is actually the story itself. I don't think there's anything wrong with it, it just doesn't have the pazazz (well how would you spell it?) and originality of the characters. Also - and this is my main issue - the ending Really Pisses Me Off. I don't have a problem with bittersweet endings, but I am not happy to be sat enjoying a pleasant, easy-watching film when suddenly a desperate-to-be-interesting plot twist comes barrelling out of nowhere (literally) and then the film ends, leaving you with this "...what the BLOODY HELL just happened?" feeling. 

***

Writing: How To Deal With Rejection

So a couple of months ago I entered this competition for Young Writers, run by this new publishing company, specifically for young adult readers. I've seen writing competitions here and there pretty often, but this is the only one I've ever entered, basically because I'm usually too young/write for the wrong audience. This competition, however, was for young readers, from young writers, and was in many other ways quite suspiciously perfect. I submitted an old(ish) story, but revamped the first few chapters to try and mature the tone. I read somewhere that they'd only had about 350 entries, and narrowed it down to 20 for the next stage. That's like a 1 in 17 chance (...hopefully...), which I wouldn't fancy in a bet, but for publishing - where odds are more typically in the quadruple-figure area - it's like gold dust. Now I'm not arrogant enough to think I would win, but I did think I had a chance at getting through to the next stage, and that would have been such a brilliant boost.

Yeah, I got rejected.

The frustrating thing is that this is not even new to me. I sent off a load of submissions for my first novel (which was, in retrospect, fairly shite) when I was about fifteen, and amassed twenty-odd rejections. Then I went away and wrote another (less shite, though in fairness still not exactly a masterpiece - the one I submitted for the competition) story, which I sent off to loads of agents. I got another small mountain of rejections, but then an agent asked to see the rest of my manuscript.

Then they didn't email me back for nine months, which I translated as a 'no'. For the record, I am quite certain that the only thing worse than a rejection is being ignored entirely. So I think I've been rejected about forty times, maybe more, and you'd think I'd be used to it by now. And you know, actually, you do start to get used to it - when you're sending off the first wave of submissions the first few 'No thank you's are like physical punches in the gut. Then as they start to pile up, it gets to a point where looking at one of those big A4 envelopes being pushed through the letterbox just gives you this slight twinge of 'Ah, bugger' and then you move on with your day. But it's been well over a year since I got my last rejection, and since this was a bit less of a gamble than I was used to, it didn't feel so much like a punch on the nose as having seven kinds of shit knocked out of my ego.

But after all this time I have learnt how to deal with rejection, and it pretty much goes like this:
1. Buy (and subsequently eat) a tub of Ben and Jerry's
2. Watch The Full Monty (or other feel-good film of your choosing)
3. Feel sorry for yourself (time period subjective, but recommended maximum two hours - otherwise you start pissing others off)
4. Burn a copy of Fifty Shades of Grey (optional)
5. Write a whiney blog post about your first world problems
6. Have a flick through your rejection letters and tell yourself that one day, when your book is topping the bestseller lists, you will send these back to the agents with FUCK YOU written in big, red letters
7. Keep writing

Ultimately, the last one is hardest and most important. But I remember reading somewhere a quote that went along the lines of "The moment you become a writer is when you put the first story on the shelf, and start writing the second." And I think that's really good advice.

At least, I'm sure I'll think that once I've hit step 6.

Uglies series - Scott Westerfeld

Right, so I know I haven't reviewed a book in over a month, and I know I'm supposed to be a Literature student, and I know that's terrible blah blah blah. But I have actually read four books in the intervening time - now alright, so the Uglies series isn't exactly Dostoyevsky (you know, I spelt that right first time. I should definitely get points for that), but I have been working full time, and the resulting self pity eats up my time. Anywho....

Uglies
One of the things I liked the most about this series, but this book in particular, was the character of Tally, who is one of the most convincing teenage heroines I've read in a YA fantasy book. There are three really interesting blogs on Bookish Blather about how Tally is actually much more of a 'feminist' heroine than The Hunger Games' Katniss Everdeen, despite generally kicking less ass. Anyway, the pacing was also really good - it kept you interested without throwing too much at you too fast, and I think the idea (see the TV Tropes or goodreads page for full details) is fascinating, particularly with the current societal attitude towards femininity in relation to beauty, and falsity.

Sorry, that went a bit pretentious. I'm going to have one more moment of snobbery, then get a little perspective - just bear with me. I couldn't point to specific examples of why, but the friendship between Tally and Shay was just missing something. Also, what is it with YA fantasy protagonists and whining?

***/*

Pretties - goodreads
I  found the friendship element better in this book, and I also found the whole trading-in-for-a-new-love-interest thing a lot less irritating than it usually is (in fact, this series plays the love-triangle theme with less oh-for-Christ's-sakes than most of the other YA series which feel the need to chuck one in). I also thought the Cutters were a skilful navigation of a very touchy subject in a fantasy context - similarly to the theme of the series generally.

What I did find slightly annoying was that it seemed to back up on the message of Uglies. I know that's kind of deliberate, I just didn't feel like we'd got very far. Also, the whole Andrew Simpson Smith caveman bit was kind of out-of-left-field (at the time I thought it might become relevant, and therefore less random, as the series went on, but...it didn't).

***

Specials - goodreads
I preferred this to Pretties, I think, because it pulled back some of the excitement from the first book. Of course, apocalyptic storylines will do that. The romantic subplot in this is also much more underplayed, which showed how much better the stories work focusing just on Tally. She also whines less in this book, which was a welcome relief.

I thought the navigation of the Cutters was much less subtle than in Pretties, and the brainwashing thing was starting to get a bit repetitive by now. Again, that was sort of the point, but there was a lot more trekking through the wild, a lot more angst, a lot more internal dialogue that you're reading thinking 'Oh you stupid twerp' etc...

***

Extras - goodreads

This book wreaked of dammit-why-did-I-finish-that-really-successful-series-I-wrote regrets, but for all that was actually not bad - or at least, as good as the second and third books. I appreciated the fact that this wasn't set in Futuristic America, mainly because apparently it's now very weird to set a book of this nature somewhere other than Futuristic America. Again, I thought the idea was great - an interestingly bizarre way to analyse current popular obsessions and phases. I liked the more ensemble cast of characters, rather than the one-man-show of the first three books.

I did, however, find the character of Frizz - who was supposed to be the romantic interest - a massive sap. Eye-rollingly so, all the way through the book - he had no purpose whatsoever other than to make life more difficult for everybody else. I also thought the section of the plot with the Sly Girls was really interesting, and I wished it had been explored more, rather than diving straight back into the end-of-the-world thing.

***

Don't I come off as up myself when I'm talking about books? Even when it's young adult dystopian mush, apparently.

Film: Take This Waltz

I try to be artsy and studenty, I really do. I love independent cinemas - I love their quirkiness, I love that they all seem to have an attached bar, I love their events and I love that I feel like I'm making more of a difference. But every time I watch an indie movie, I always come out feeling like this:

And Take This Waltz was a perfect example of that. I get that it was trying to be subtly overwhelming and an accurate reflection of life and blah blah blah, but I just - very simply - didn't enjoy it. The IMDb page for you - this film doesn't have a TV Tropes page, which - frankly - would have told me all I needed to know...

I mean it wasn't actively bad - I liked the realism edges it had, and I really liked the alcoholic sister-in-law character (Sarah Silverman). But frankly, I would much rather have watched a film about her than the story which actually unfolded.

The main character - whose name I hadn't picked up on until two-thirds of the way through the film, and have since forgotten - was just really, bloody irritating. The plot doesn't work unless you sympathise with her, and frankly I just wanted to give her a slap - at least it would shake some of the sappiness out of her. The guy she has an affair with is equally irritating, not having any definable character outside of mysterious-and-sexy-stranger, whereas I actually liked the husband who got thoroughly shat upon. All the sort of coupley-quirks between the protagonist and her husband might have been supposed to be cute, but personally I just found it weird and uncomfortable - as I think is a pretty normal reaction to being outside of the couple with the quirks. Maybe that was deliberate, but I still didn't like it.

*

Basically, the whole film just frustrated me...I thought the characters were bland, the plot slow and irritating, the ending very much a "...whut?" sequence and...yeah, no. Indie, artsy and clever it may have been, but I didn't get it and I won't be watching it again.

Film: Christopher Nolan's Batman Trilogy

So, Batman is quite a big deal in my house. I've watched a lot of Batman. I'm just gonna leave that there.

Batman adaptations have been camp, cheesy, flat-out ludicrous and strange, but Christopher Nolan took the franchise in a darker, edgier, in some ways I think more loyal direction. Aspects of the comics (of which I am IN NO WAY an expert) are camp as Christmas, certainly, but I can remember being genuinely frightenend by some of the images I saw in them when I was a kid. Anyway, I recently re-watched the first couple of films, in preparation for watching the new release, and thought I'd do a Mega-Post for the trilogy.

Batman Begins - IMDb and TV Tropes
I think I was basically a child the last time I watched this, so it was nice to watch it and actually understand what was happening. I really appreciated the way they took their time with the exposition and back story, rather than having Bruce Wayne become Batman inside ten minutes, so they could get on with the punch-ups and explosions. I also was impressed by the very literal use of actual bats - it was really effective, and gave them opportunities for some truly cracking Batman-descending-through-a-swarm-of-bats shots. I love a good snarky comment, and both Alfred and Lucius Fox are golden for them - in fact, I love everything about those two characters. (Fun fact: the little kid who pops up now and again throughout the film, is actually Joffrey from Game of Thrones, looking astonishingly cute and adorable for such an evil little shit.)

The only thing that kind of annoyed me was the confusing, non-liner narrative at the beginning - which jumped all over the place more than it really needed to. Also, the totally illogical sequence wherein Bruce Wayne refuses to execute a murderer, but in order to avoid it blows up a mansion full of ninjas - a little moronic.

****

The Dark Knight - IMDb and TV Tropes
It's going to be hard to not turn this into a drooly, adoring speech about the Joker, so I'll just say I think that character is one of the most extraordinary, genuinely frightening villains ever created, and the bar has been set very high by previous adaptations - but The Dark Knight still wins. I've got a slightly sick interest in moral dilemmas within stories, but they only work when they're done well - but The Dark Knight takes the whole Sadistic Choice thing to a whole new level. The pacemaking in this film is superb - it's really one-part superhero movie, and four-parts thriller - I've never known another film take you along for the ride the way this does. Also, someone among the collective screenwriters has some sort of doctorate in Epic Lines - the "Some men just want to watch the world burn" anecdote is inspired.

I have now literally spent about twenty minutes trying to think of something I didn't like about this film, but all I've got is Batman's voice. It's a little bit panto.

*****

The Dark Knight Rises - IMDb and TV Tropes
I think I've decided that this film was my least favourite of the three, but I still thought it was excellent. I particularly appreciated that they took their time bringing Batman back - unlike the standard Superhero Sequel, wherein the hero has one Profound Encounter and whips the mask back out in the first five minutes, it takes ages for Bruce Wayne to turn back into Batman. As an extension of that, I was also pleasantly surprised that they went for realism over Hollywoodism in Batman's first fight scene - he doesn't just get beaten, he gets annihilated in a straight punch-up; no explosions or gadgetry, he just gets the crap kicked out of him because he's simply not as good as he used to be. The intricacy of the plot was very clever - much more reminiscent of what made Inception so brilliant; so confusing it's genius.

That said, though Batman's voice has always been annoying, this time it was easily outdone by Bane - it was like Sean Connery in a Darth Vader mask. There were fewer laughs in this film too - I mean, the laughs in The Dark Knight were mainly slightly-horrified, but this film was taking itself too seriously. I also thought the middle section went on for way too long, and was (and I am aware of the irony as I say this) a bit too far-fetched.

****