Category Archives: Reviews

Book Review: Against A Dark Background by Ian M. Banks

Jean-Paul’s Rating: 3/5 stars

This is one of those books that could really do with two different reviews.  One for its plot and one for its content.

The plot is kind of ridiculous and reads more like a bad role-playing game than a novel.  It finds itself jumping from location to location and having the characters get into various adventures at those locations.  If that was all “Against a Dark Background” had going for it, I would forever throw it into the literary trash heap and be done with it.  Luckily, the world that “Against a Dark Background” inhabits is rich and varied and complicated and imaginative and consistently surprising.

It is very hard to describe the world Banks has created in this book.  We have what appears to be a rogue sun, Thrial, with an orbiting planetary system, the main of which is Golter.  Golter can best be described as containing a pseudo-anarchic city-state system of government with a semi-autonomous world government that attempts to keep all-out anarchy at bay.  The plot revolves around the main character, Sharrow, and her attempts to flee an amorphous cult called the Huhsz which thinks that Sharrow needs to die in order for their prophesies to be fulfilled.  The world government, which is called the World Court, is totally ok with this and there is, in fact, a formal process that entities can submit themselves to in order to get these assassination passports.

Sharrow and her friends spend the entire book trying to stay a step ahead of the Huhsz, all the while searching for a weapon of immense power called a Lazy Gun which has been lost for generations and is best described as a weapon of mass destruction with a sense of humor.  Fire it at a man standing in the middle of a desert and it will create a deluge of water which will drown him.  Fire it at a city and a giant meteor will appear to wipe it out.  You get the idea.  The Huhsz have promised Sharrow that she can trade her life for the Lazy Gun if she can find it before they find her.

What makes the book worth while is everything Sharrow and her friends come across in their adventures.  There is a jewel heist in a city called the Log Jam which consists of a series of boats tied together and stretching kilometers across.  There is a book theft in a city ruled by a king that forswears all technology and learning of any kind.  There is a cult that lives in a place called the Sea House and whose members must walk around forever chained to the wall which contains an interlocking system of grooves that allow them to slide their chains from room to room.  There is a city full of androids that is too radioactive for humans to live in full-time.  There are Solipsists who spend their time explaining away everything they see around themselves as projections of their own godhood.  And more.

And that’s the saving grace of this book.  There is so much imagination just packed into the pages.  Much of it doesn’t seem to go together and a lot even seems contradictory but it is all quite enjoyable if you ignore these faults.  I see “Against a Dark Background” as more of an adult children’s book.  It doesn’t make much sense, but it allows your imagination to run wild.

Movie Review: Exodus: Gods And Kings

Jean-Paul’s Rating: 3/5 stars

Bottom Line: A visually gorgeous movie with great acting and a middling story.  Ploddingly long at points.  How can you make plagues boring?

Given that a vast majority of the population of the United States is either Christian or Jewish, the story of Exodus will be familiar.  Moses grows up like an Egyptian prince, later finds out he’s a Hebrew, gets told by god to free his people from Egyptian slavery, leads his people to the promised land.  Throw in some plagues and you got yourself the basics of the movie.

Visually, the movie was stunning.  Given, life at that time was much harder, more brutal, and shorter than any of us would be comfortable with, but man, would I want to see Memphis in its prime.  I don’t know how much historical accuracy Ridley Scott went for in portraying it, but it was beautiful.  It is too bad, the visuals were the best part of the movie.

The acting was great, as you would expect from a movie starring Christian Bale, Ben Kingsley, and Sigourney Weaver.  The kid who played Yahweh was also quite good, though I can’t seem to find his name.  There was this one part where he goes all Old Testament that was just exceptional.

None of that can make up for the plodding length of the movie, however.  Weighing in at 150 minutes, much of the movie just goes from scene to scene without much background and often leaves you wondering why things happened the way they did.  The missing background, like Moses’ youth, would have made a much better story.  Also surprising was how boring the plagues were.  They seem to have been an afterthought of the movie.  It went kind of like this: story, story, story, story, plaaaaaaaaagues, overly long death of the firstborn, story, anticlimactic Red Sea showdown, story, story.  Yes, there was a completely pointless rationalization of the plagues thrown in the middle somewhere, but that didn’t seem to fit at all.

This one’s difficult to recommend.  There’s some good stuff, but I’m not sure it’s really worth the time investment.  Oh, and you can ignore all the biblical criticisms of the movie that you read.  Yes, liberties were taken, but choosing Moses to speak to a child-god just makes dramatic sense.

Movie Review: The Theory Of Everything

Jean-Paul’s Rating: 3/5 stars

Bottom Line: Eddie Redmayne has an uncanny likeness to Stephen Hawking.  Not much science.  Parts of the movie were engrossing, parts plodding.  Somewhat annoying soundtrack.

Stephen Hawking is an amazing individual and without a doubt one of the top minds so far in the 21st century.  He has also led, as you can imagine, a very complicated personal life.  This movie focuses more on the personal life than his life as a cosmologist.  At heart, this movie is a love story with maddeningly tiny bits of science intertwined throughout.  In the movie’s defense, what Hawking works on is well over the top of most lay people, including myself, and it does a pretty good job of describing the science it delves into so that most people can at least conceptualize it.

I am not sure how true to life the movie is.  It is based on an autobiography by Jane Hawking, Stephen’s love interest in the movie.  Having read things about the Hawkings’ personal life in the past, I get the feeling that this movie represents the sugar-coated, lipstick-on-a-pig version of the real story.  Not that I’d blame anyone for trying to put a better face on what is undoubtedly a compelling story regardless of the glossing over of sordid details.

It was amazing watching Eddie Redmayne portray the degeneration of Stephen Hawking from awkward nerd to the wheelchair-bound, speech-synthesized professor most of us are familiar with as amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) ravages his body.  Equally amazing, but easily overlooked, was Felicity Jones’ portrayal of Jane Hawking.  If this were a better movie, I’d say they would both be nominated for various awards.

The pacing of the movie was somewhat awkward.  One could be so inclined to say that this was on purpose and represented Hawking’s awkwardness as his ALS took over his body, but I’m guessing that was not the intent.  Much of the awkwardness in the movie, I think, is due to the halting soundtrack.  Most of the more compelling parts of the movie are shot with emotion capturing silence, while others have a not out-of-place, but not quite fitting soundtrack that suddenly launches which, for me, almost always detracted from the scene.  Then there were the parts that were likely necessary, but lasted a bit too long so your interest would wane slightly.

All in all, though, this was a good biopic of the Hawking family.  They are certainly an intriguing family on many levels.  I’d recommend it to pretty much anyone.  There is no need to see this movie in the theaters, though, so save your money and wait for it to come to the small screen of your home.

Movie Review: Mockingjay Part 1

Jean-Paul’s rating: 4/5 stars

Bottom Line: As good as or better than “Catching Fire”.  More great acting.  More great design.  For once, a movie where I get the bland, interchangeable, good-looking men confused.

And we’ve come to the final book of the “Hunger Games” series.  The studios, in their infinite wisdom, have decided to split the final book into two movies because money.  This is always something to be wary of, but there’s enough material in “Mockingjay Part 1” to make it both enjoyable and to leave you guessing as to what will happen when Part 2 comes out.

If you recall from my “Catching Fire” review, I’ve been looking forward to seeing “Mockingjay”.  “Catching Fire” had a lot to recommend itself and I’m happy to see that “Mockingjay” is a worthy successor in the series.  Whereas I though there was some silliness in “Catching Fire”, there was none of that in “Mockingjay”.  “Mockingjay” was also more internally consistent, which I assume is what you get when you have two movies to tell your story.

Once again, we have some superb acting jobs by the inestimable Donald Sutherland (President Snow) and by the better every time you see her Jennifer Lawrence (Katniss).  In fact, there’s a scene in this movie where Jennifer Lawrence has to pretend to act poorly and you totally believe it.  So yeah, she acts really well acting poorly.  That’s talent.  New to the series in Julian Moore who portrays President Coin very effectively.  It is also good to see the now deceased Phillip Seymore Hoffman back as Plutarch Heavensbee (He died after filming most of his “Mockingjay” lines).  Other than that, the performances are all effective to meh.  I’ve always found Josh Hutcherson’s portrayal of Peeta to be sort of annoying, but he’s better in this one.  The one thing that I found funny is how I could not tell Gale (Liam Hemsworth) and Finnick (Sam Clafin) apart through most of the movie.  If they had switched roles halfway through the film, I would have been none the wiser.

Another good thing about this movie is how much the great design work really shines through.  It was just as good in the previous films, but the gaudy pomposity of the Capitol always kind of drowned out the attention to detail paid in the Districts.  Here, with very few Capitol scenes, the amount of detail paid to the scenes can really take center stage.

My only real complaint about the movie is that I think they ended the movie wrong.  There is this one scene, which I will not spoil, where I whispered over to my brother and said “Right there is where they should have ended this movie”.  You’ll know it when you see it.  Some stuff happens beyond that, but it saddens me when definitive shocking endings are wasted.

I would probably recommend a rewatching of “Catching Fire” prior to watching this movie as there were times when I was scratching my head trying to recall things that they referenced from the prior movie.  Other than that, what we have here is another winner in what’s turning out to be a very effective series of movies. Needless to say, I am looking forward to seeing the next as well.

Book Review: The Human Division by John Scalzi

Jean-Paul’s Rating: 4/5 stars

Dear John Scalzi, please ink a deal with either HBO or Netflix or some other production company that can make the Old Man’s War universe a television reality.  Thank you, everybody.

“The Human Division” is the last book until the next book of the Old Man’s War universe.  It’s not really a novel as much as it is a series of short stories, most of which center on the same characters.  Taken together, they provide a timeline of events after John Perry’s exploits in “The Last Colony”.  The focus this time, however, is the Colonial Union’s State Department.  Or, to be more precise, a single crew of diplomats as they traverse the galaxy signing trade agreements and being the friendly face of the Colonial Union as they finally attempt diplomacy instead of that whole blowing everything up thing they were doing before.

The characters in this book are mostly new, except for Harry Wilson who made an appearance in “Old Man’s War” as part of the same Old Geezer Club (or something like that) as John Perry when they joined the Colonial Defense Force.  We are introduced to various memorable characters such as Ode Abumwe, the stern and stately ambassador, Hart Schmidt, the one often responsible for getting the team both in and out of trouble, and Danielle Lowen, the U.S. diplomat who all to often gets caught up in Schmidt’s and Wilson’s adventures.

As you can imagine, the diplomatic universe is rife with Scalzian wit opportunities and John Scalzi does not disappoint.  We are treated to such gems as a traditional salt-water-spitting-in-the-face ceremonial greeting and beloved dogs being swallowed by plants and Wilson fighting a member of an alien race completely naked as part of a diplomatic test of strengths between the two races.  Throughout, you have the light, friendly banter between Wilson and Schmidt and Lowen as they proceed from one adventure to another.  It’s a treat.

I can’t help but feel that serials like the ones contained in this book are what the Old Man’s War universe was meant for.  They are just the right length for Scalzi’s wit and ability to write individual scenes.  I hope for many more iterations to come.  And I also mysteriously want a churro.

Movie Review: Big Hero 6

Jean-Paul’s Rating: 3/5 stars

Bottom Line: A fun kids movie.  Cute and inventive.  Some humor for the adults, but not much.  Disney’s attempt to be Pixar.

The good news is that you don’t need to see any of “Big Hero 1-5” in order to understand the story of “Big Hero 6”.  That’s a joke.  I know that there weren’t five other prequels to this movie.  It does raise the question of what they would call a sequel to this movie, though.

“Big Hero 6” is very loosely based on a Marvel comic series of the same name.  This version follows a bunch of nerds who develop really awesome science projects.  They then go on to incorporate those science projects into super hero costumes.  If you want any further proof that nerdism has gone mainstream, look no further.  The devices used are mostly really clever with a little silly thrown in.  As an added plus, the team is also very diverse.

There is a lot of stuff here for kids to enjoy.  It’s maybe a little too cutesy at times for the adults and the “lesson” is kind of blah, but all in all, what we have here is an all around well put together movie that adults can tolerate, if not enjoy, and kids will really like.  The animation is crisp and unique.  Baymax, the cute rubbery robot, plays very well as a comic foil.  Besides Hiro, the teenage genius, the other characters don’t get as much fleshing out, but there’s enough to feel for them.  The villain is kind of one-dimensional and not terribly believable, but this is a kids movie.

Disney really tried to copy the winning Pixar formula here and fell a little short.  The animation is similar and they even have John Lasseter of “Toy Story” fame producing it.  There was even the ubiquitous short animation film before the main movie that Pixar pioneered.  That leads me to wonder why they didn’t just hand the movie over to Pixar completely since they own them.  I guess Disney wants to show that its animation studio can produce CG movies as good as Pixar can.

If you like kids movies, you’ll probably enjoy this one.  I found it a fun time even though the pacing was strange at times.  There’s no real need to see it in the theater if you have a decent home television, but if you don’t crisp animation is always worth going to the theater for.

Movie Review: Interstellar

Jean-Paul’s Rating: 3/5 stars

Bottom Line: A movie with mostly good science!  Decent story, if a little overwrought.  Magnificent scenery.  IMAX sound adds to the enjoyment.  Questionable ending.

“Interstellar” is a beautiful movie.  It paints a stark, somewhat believable future and throws us on a last-ditch effort to save humanity.  From the Earth, to space, to planets both known and unknown, to black holes, it is gorgeous.  But a gorgeous movie doesn’t necessarily mean a good movie.  So how does this one hold up?  Meh, it was decent.

On some level, I must have liked it because its two hour and forty-five minute run time did not feel like it at all.  The plot interesting and doesn’t really slow down.  There are some things that bothered me like how can you not know the basic composition of a planet prior to landing on it?  Or how can a habitable planet orbit so close to a black hole that it brings relativity into play?  The former, I am almost sure is possible today, the latter, I may just not know enough about planetary formation.  These things can be forgiven because they lead to some spectacular what-if situations that will mess with your mind.  I’m also pretty sure there’s a fairly large plot hole in the film, but I’d have to rewatch it to be sure.

And then there’s the ending.  It seems as if it were tacked on to make the movie a little more feel-good.  I won’t spoil anything, but the decisions that were made seem both unlikely and unnecessary.  There wasn’t much of an emotional attachment to make the decision that was made and there seemed to be plenty of other options available that would be much more palatable.  Oh, and don’t even get me started on the whole cause-effect stuff that ties everything together.

I would be remiss if I didn’t mention the awesome sound in the movie.  I watched the movie in one of those almost-but-not-quite-IMAX theaters where the sound quality is excellent and the screen is larger than normal, but not true IMAX size.  The sound in this movie adds much to this adventure.  When ships are taking off, you actually feel like you’re taking off with them, minus the 10 G-forces.  For this reason, I would highly recommend you watch the movie in as high quality a theater as possible.

All things considered,I enjoyed the movie and would recommend that anyone who has a hankerin’ for space go see it in the theater.  Others, I’m not sure about.  I think this is a good general audience movie, but can’t subjectively say if the non-space loving general public will enjoy it.

Book Review: Zoe’s Tale by John Scalzi

Jean-Paul’s Rating: 3/5 stars

And we’re back into John Scalzi’s excellent “Old Man’s War” universe!  If I were to sum up “Zoe’s Tale” in one word it would be: cute.  I’m sure John Scalzi would be thrilled.  But I don’t mean it as an insult.  In many ways, Scalzi has succeeded where others have failed.  For starters, he successfully wrote a book from a female teenage protagonist’s point of view without coming off as a creepy guy.  I’m looking at you, Piers Anthony!  On top of that, the teenagers are actually pretty teenagey.  Another thing that’s not easy to pull off as an adult writer without teenagers.

If in reading “Zoe’s Tale” you get the feeling that you’ve been here before, it’s because you have.  If you’ve previously read “The Last Colony“, that is.  This book tells the same story as “The Last Colony”, only from Zoe’s point of view.  It also fills in gaps in the story from “The Last Colony” that people were curious about.

Zoe, if you will recall is the teenage adopted daughter of John Perry and Jane Sagan.  And she has a…complicated…history.  After all, it’s not all teenagers that have an entire race following their every word and action.  And there’s also the two Obin bodyguards, Hickory and Dickory, who record and transmit her words and actions.  Just what every teenager wants.  To say that Zoe lives an interesting life is an understatement.  Scalzi does a good job of delving into what that life would be like from a teenage perspective.  And, of course, there’s Scalzi’s wit and sarcasm which is always a pleasure to read.

If you are a fan of the “Old Man’s War” universe, “Zoe’s Tale” is worth reading.  Any extra tidbits you can get from a well written universe is always worth it as long as the story is reasonably well done.  And this one is.  The extra stuff with the werewolves, Zoe’s relationship with the Obin, and her diplomatic mission are all delicious morsels to sate your “Old Man’s War” fix.  As a stand-alone book, I would not recommend “Zoe’s Tale” at all, except maybe to teenagers who would like to read a book with a teenage protagonist.  The book does read like a stand-alone book, but there’s not much “there” there to make it worth while outside of the deeper “Old Man’s War” universe.

Movie Review: John Wick

Jean-Paul’s Rating: 3/5 stars

Bottom Line: Mindless fun.  Good stylized violence.  A wicked sense of humor.

Poor Alfie Allen!  I didn’t think it was possible to be typecast as a young upstart who consistently pines for the approval of his father and fails miserably, but there you have it.  You may know Alfie Allen as Theon Greyjoy from “Game of Thrones”.  In “John Wick”, he reprises his role as Theon, but this time he is called Iosef Tarasov and he is the son of a gangland mafia boss.  He has a chance meeting with John Wick (Keanu Reeves) at a gas station and really likes John’s car.  Boy, did he pick the wrong person to steal a car from.  I won’t spoil more than that, because if you don’t know more than that about the movie, I’ll completely spoil John Wick’s motivation for you.

“John Wick” is a fun movie.  It is carefully crafted and scenes are created with an abundance of attention to detail.  I was surprised to learn that “John Wick” does not come from any comic book or regular book series.  For a stand-alone movie with no background source material to borrow from, there is certainly a lot of world-building in the movie.  The “John Wick” underworld is a universe within itself with all sorts of rules and etiquette.

Another surprising thing about this movie is the amount of legitimately funny dry humor in the movie.  It’s all done in a deadpan way without any accompanying music or action and the result is dead air filled with an audience that is laughing.  I don’t think I’ve been more aware of audience laughter in a movie.  It’s a bit eerie, especially given the source material.

The one major complaint I have about the movie is how poorly all these little things get wrapped up in the end.  It’s almost sloppy.  It slightly ruined my enjoyment of the movie.  It makes me think that they had an alternate ending in mind that didn’t test well so they threw this ending together.  Or maybe ending movies is just really difficult and this is the best they could come up with.  Regardless, “John Wick” is a fun ride despite its warts.  I would certainly enjoy a sequel if it’s of the quality of the first three-fourths of the movie.

Book Review: Jane Eyre by Charlotte Bronte

Jean-Paul’s Rating: 4/5 stars

Now here is a classic that I understand why it has remained a classic.  Jane Eyre, the character, is ahead of her time and unforgettable.  She is foolishly courageous, headstrong, opinionated, and usually right.  Yes, this is, at its heart, a romance book, but it’s not your everyday romance book.  In this book, the characters are all interesting and the romance plays a secondary role to the adventures of Jane.  In fact, I really only recognized it as a romance book about half way through and even then you don’t really quite know how things are going to turn out.

The book follows Jane from her miserable adopted childhood under the protection of a begrudging aunt to her school days as both student and teacher at Lowood to her role as a governess for Mr. Rochester at Thornfield Hall to her flight from Thornfield Hall to her falling in with the Rivers family where she becomes once again a teacher for disadvantaged girls.  Throughout, Jane is portrayed as very level-headed and well ahead of her time, much to the consternation of those, but especially the men, around her.

Interspersed between what is an engaging story is also some great social commentary.  For instance, “Prejudices, it is well known, are most difficult to eradicate from the heart whose soil has never been loosened or fertilised by education: they grow there, firm as weeds among stones.”  Beautiful.

Also this: “It is vain to say human beings ought to be satisfied with tranquillity: they must have action; and they will make it if they cannot find it.  Millions are condemned to a stiller doom than mine, and millions are in silent revolt against their lot.  Nobody knows how many rebellions besides political rebellions ferment in the masses of life which people earth.  Women are supposed to be very calm generally: but women feel just as men feel; they need exercise for their faculties, and a field for their efforts, as much as their brothers do; they suffer from too rigid a restraint, to absolute a stagnation, precisely as men would suffer; and it is narrow-minded in their more privileged fellow-creatures to say that they ought to confine themselves to making puddings and knitting stockings, to playing on the piano and embroidering bags.  It is thoughtless to condemn them, or laugh at them, if they seek to do more or learn more than custom has pronounced for their sex.”

So yeah, I think you can fairly say that Charlotte Bronte was feminist before feminism was cool (which is scheduled to happen in 2020 the way we’re going).  And that’s just a smattering of what the book has to offer.

But enough about the social commentary portions of the book.  There is much to be said about Charlotte Bronte’s storytelling as well.  The book is absolutely mesmerizing up to the point where Jane Eyre first leaves Thornfield Hall.  It does get a bit pedestrian after that, but you’re over two-thirds through the book before that happens.  There are some legitimately sad moments that will have you near tears.  There is a lot of amazingly witty dialogue, especially between Mr. Rochester and Jane during their first interactions.  There is mystery that actually passes for mysterious.  This is a novel that does everything well.

When I first started reading “Jane Eyre”, I couldn’t help but compare Charlotte Bronte to Charles Dickens.  They both cover similar topics and Charlotte’s writing style reminded me of Charles’.  They were contemporaries so it is possible that each influenced the other somewhat even if they did not know each other.  Has there ever been a time in the history of humanity where so much good fiction was coming out of one place all at once?