I cant say I enjoyed this book, but it was so damn well written it deserves mention.
Its a ghost story set in the encroaching 24 hours darkness in a land above the Arctic Circle.
The author brilliantly captures the encroaching mental claustrophobia of aloneness in a hut, in the dark, the sole companionship of a dog, and this, going to get worse.
I'll be honest, I do most of my reading in the dead hours of night, and I couldnt bring myself to do it with this book, right off from the first few chapters, things were going easily enough, but you just knew it wasnt going to stay that way.
A stand-out book because it was set so unusually. Wont let on how it ends.
Well done Michelle Paver, 5 out of 5.
Sunday, December 23, 2012
Tuesday, December 18, 2012
Movie: The Hobbit
Trouped along, as we ALL have to see this one.
Saw it at Palmerston North's Cinema Gold, to catch it in 48 fps/3D. Two issues settled.
One, all those comments from people who felt nauseated/giddy, whatever, from the high frame rate, are just dribbling, I didnt experience any problem, although I think this movie would be better watched from seating further back and a bit higher. I was about 4 rows from the front and looking up.
Two, this is a long movie, whose 3 hour cause not at all helped by at least 20 minutes in this particular PN cinema, of puerile pre-movie advertising stuff. Its like kiddies from the local gamer graphics community having a show-off. In front of an expected and large captive audience. Totally pathetic.
The movie itself could probably be justly called another Jackson triumph, excellent camera work, the 48 fps did work to my mind, and Martin Freeman did the standout acting performance, although all the dwarves were good.
Everyone else looks 5 years older, except for Gollum, creepy as usual, but still fantastic, as was the scenery.
A quip doing the rounds about school kids studying The Hobbit in class, didnt go see the movie, they read the book instead.
So the storyline, this first movie of 3 covering only 300 pages total of book, was a bit of a doddle. Like with Skyfall's shortcomings, I WANT A STORY!!
4 out of 5, begrudgingly.
Saw it at Palmerston North's Cinema Gold, to catch it in 48 fps/3D. Two issues settled.
One, all those comments from people who felt nauseated/giddy, whatever, from the high frame rate, are just dribbling, I didnt experience any problem, although I think this movie would be better watched from seating further back and a bit higher. I was about 4 rows from the front and looking up.
Two, this is a long movie, whose 3 hour cause not at all helped by at least 20 minutes in this particular PN cinema, of puerile pre-movie advertising stuff. Its like kiddies from the local gamer graphics community having a show-off. In front of an expected and large captive audience. Totally pathetic.
The movie itself could probably be justly called another Jackson triumph, excellent camera work, the 48 fps did work to my mind, and Martin Freeman did the standout acting performance, although all the dwarves were good.
Everyone else looks 5 years older, except for Gollum, creepy as usual, but still fantastic, as was the scenery.
A quip doing the rounds about school kids studying The Hobbit in class, didnt go see the movie, they read the book instead.
So the storyline, this first movie of 3 covering only 300 pages total of book, was a bit of a doddle. Like with Skyfall's shortcomings, I WANT A STORY!!
4 out of 5, begrudgingly.
Thursday, December 13, 2012
Movie: Skyfall
The best part about this movie was the opening sequence, but for those of us who've followed the franchise a lifetime, the rest of it was, OK, Bond............., but not as we know it Jim.
Daniel's a good Bond for sure, have picked up a few comments he looked a bit haggard this time, but then that's what the plot called for with his comeback from the "dead".
There wasnt any sex either, to speak of, and the best hint of it got shot.
And was the storyline a bit thin? Or was it no worse than the average other movie Bond movie?
Judy Dench was her usual attractive and good self/performance, and that and the camera work and backdrop were the other memorable carry-forwards.
Saw a recent snippet that Hugh Jackman once turned down an offer of the Bond role, but could get interested.
3 out of 5
Daniel's a good Bond for sure, have picked up a few comments he looked a bit haggard this time, but then that's what the plot called for with his comeback from the "dead".
There wasnt any sex either, to speak of, and the best hint of it got shot.
And was the storyline a bit thin? Or was it no worse than the average other movie Bond movie?
Judy Dench was her usual attractive and good self/performance, and that and the camera work and backdrop were the other memorable carry-forwards.
Saw a recent snippet that Hugh Jackman once turned down an offer of the Bond role, but could get interested.
3 out of 5
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)