Sent by email from Viv. Ages ago. Whoops. You know the usual rules – rip it off if you like and pop it on your own blog, or fill in the answers in the comments. Drop me a mail or a link if you use it so I can nosey at your answers!
Oh, yeah – and (with obvious exceptions) only one word per answer.
I’ve not yet seen the original movie, but I was fairly impressed with the TV series as far as 4-episode television goes. From what I gather, the 1971 version is definitely worth a watch. I’m sure I have it kicking around somewhere – as I did with the novel for long enough.
There’s a copy of the book in a box under the house somewhere. I bought it years ago, but never got around to reading it. I then saw it in a charity shop in Perth, Western Australia earlier this year and picked it up. That copy is now sat here, finally finished, in Perth, Scotland.
It’s one of Michael Crichton‘s earlier works and published in 1969. The science inside is therefore a mixture of “out of date” and “second-guessing the future”. In honesty, I think he does a decent job of fusing the two. The list of references at the end is enormous, as is the number of in-text scientific asides.
The plot is fairly simple – a meteor lands, someone finds it and the population start to drop like flies as a result of some kind of disease. Instead of turning into a huge disaster story, the author instead concentrates on the efforts to determine what is causing the deaths (and how two people survived) while – to a large extent – ignoring the world outside of the secret testing facility where all the science takes place.
What’s surprising is that there’s no real drama. Everything is so clinical once the science part starts that there’s little to emotionally involve the reader. From a science point of view, it’s fun to try and second-guess things and there are a couple of “problems” with the hermetically sealed bunker that are obvious plot hooks waiting to be brought to life. However, when they come they do seem weak.
The way the book changes once the “action” moves from outside to inside is a shame, but perhaps that’s because I’ve been brought up on more action-oriented fare such as Outbreak. More of people running around and explosions. This is the direction the aforementioned mini-series took in its adaptation of the source material.
It’s still a good book, if you like your science fiction based heavily in science fact (and a large dollop of conjecture). I enjoyed it, and it’s easy to read but it just doesn’t seem “complete” the way some of his later books were. However, it was an early novel and led onto greater things so it can be forgiven.
As of just now, Akismet here on my blog has blocked the nice-looking number of 6789 spam posts. I still get the occasional one that creeps through, but they never end up actually posted. I’ve got a captcha program running so someone must be manually entering these things to get them as far as Akismet.
Why on earth do people bother? Really? Ah well. It’s their wasted time, not mine.
Or Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian, to give it its full title, is an example of why Ben Stiller should stick to playing “ordinary” people and ditch all the over-the-top characters he insists on resorting to. One Larry Daley is worth fifty bloody Derek Zoolanders.
Plot-in-a-nutshell: Larry, from NatM1, has gone on to bigger things. Sadly, he’s too late to find that his friends from the museum are being shipped to the Smithsonian to go into long-term storage. He sets off to rescue them and stop a mad pharaoh from taking over the world. As you do.
NatM2 is a prime example of how to do a sequel. Take the best elements of the first film, forget about wasting time setting up the premise (most of the audience saw the last film anyway) and roll with it. This manages to be one sequel that’s at least as good as the film it follows on from.
There are some genuinely witty moments and Stiller shows some great comic timing. The new characters are, in honesty, better than the ones they replace or add to from the original. Hank Azaria, in particular, is superb as the lead bad guy Kahmunrah (and The Thinker and Abe Lincoln). You may recognise him from such roles in the Simpsons as Chief Wiggum. And Comic Shop Guy. And Professor Frink. And Apu. And about 150 other roles. Vocal talent, he has it.
A quick thumbs-up for Steve Coogan in one of his best rôles, as well. Oh, and for Amy Adams (no, I’d not heard of her either) who sparkles as Amelia Earhart. It’s good to see a sidekick in a film who’s not annoying.
The effects are also superb, and lend themselves well to the film. The original made do mostly with miniaturisation of a few of the cast and a bit of CGI, mainly on Rex. The scriptwriters and effects team have let their imaginations run a little wilder on this one with some excellent visuals. I particularly liked the paintings that came to life and the black and white gangsters.
If there’s a downside, it’s that Hollywood keep throwing money at Ricky Gervais. He’s not funny – stop it. The film could have managed fine without him – as could the first one. Please, please, just stop feeding his ego and let him quietly slide into obscurity where he belongs.
Oh, and sit into the credits briefly. There’s a cracking little joke a minute or so in.
Great all-ages fun. The kids will love the big effects and whacky bad guys. Adults will appreciate a lot of the humour and historical nuances. Recommended.
Seriously. If you could film tedium, this would be it. One hour and forty-five minutes of mind-numbing boredom, horrendous acting and the worst “twist” I think I’ve ever seen.
The positive reviews on Rotten Tomatoes simply said that watching Channing Tatum beat people up was the only good thing about Fighting. Thing is, even the fight scenes are crap. They’re not particularly well filmed, are ridiculously predictable and far too short.
Plot-in-a-nutshell: Random guy in the street somehow ends up taking place in bare knuckle boxing. And wins. The end.
Just don’t bother. Save your cash. If you’re female (or gay) and want to see Channing Tatum topless then please just find some pictures on the internet. For all that’s precious in this world, don’t pay money to see this film or they may think people actually like it.