This 1961 novel is listed in "100 Must Read Science Fiction Novels".
Stansilaw Lem is the most read science-fiction writer outside of the English language. Previously, I've read "The Cyberiad", a brilliant collection of short stories translated from Polish by Michael Kandel.
"Solaris" doesn't really live up to the expectations I had on it after reading about it in "100 Must Read Science Fiction Novels", or from my experience with "The Cyberiad".
Maybe it's because it was translated by a different translator (from French no less, which means 2 translations), or maybe it's the nature of the novel itself, which is heavy and dark.
And yes, there is a movie based on this book with George Clooney in it!
The book follows Kelvin to the base on the planet Solaris. Kelvin is a scientist who dedicated his life to studying the planet and the possibly sentient living ocean that covers most of the surface. However, the novel is very much Lem's exploration of the alienness of alien life, and there are many questions that just remain unanswered. He goes on for pages and pages about previous expeditions and the complex shapes and structures created by the living ocean.
Much of the book is spent following Kelvin as he explores the base's vast library of books by other scientists and researchers who study Solaris as well. Lem puts on display the various fads and trends of his fictional universe. I think he's somehow intending to mirror the real world's tendency to do the same with science, but the parallel is lost on me.
I'm willing to accept that book is a classic and has some redeeming qualities, but it's mostly a curiosity for me, and not a particularly good one.
Wednesday, May 2, 2007
Sunday, April 29, 2007
movie: "Eragon" (2/5 stars) 2006
Eragon is a kid's fantasy movie based on the popular book by Christopher Paolini.
I thought that the movie was ok, but affected strongly by a large number of continuity errors. The person responsible for continuity was either fired, or incompetent. Is it day time or dark outside? Is it raining or sunny? Does that dragon armor have eye holes or not? Was it REALLY 4 days ride in the opposite direction?
All of your questions will be disappointingly answered in this weak fantasy movie that does nothing for the genre and will end up in the cheap bin shortly beside "Ladyhawke" and "Dungeons and Dragons", which is too bad, since it could have been really good.
Notable guest appearances include Jeremy Irons as the mentor, Robert Carlyle as the very scary evil wizard (best character), the overacting John Malkovich as the unfortunately named Galbatorix (they said the name far too often - his dragon looks cool though) and the voice of Rachel Weisz as Saphira, the good dragon. None of these actors help the movie past a 2 star rating though.
I feel bad about it, since it is a rich genre with lots of potential, as Peter Jackson showed with Lord of the Rings.
I thought that the movie was ok, but affected strongly by a large number of continuity errors. The person responsible for continuity was either fired, or incompetent. Is it day time or dark outside? Is it raining or sunny? Does that dragon armor have eye holes or not? Was it REALLY 4 days ride in the opposite direction?
All of your questions will be disappointingly answered in this weak fantasy movie that does nothing for the genre and will end up in the cheap bin shortly beside "Ladyhawke" and "Dungeons and Dragons", which is too bad, since it could have been really good.
Notable guest appearances include Jeremy Irons as the mentor, Robert Carlyle as the very scary evil wizard (best character), the overacting John Malkovich as the unfortunately named Galbatorix (they said the name far too often - his dragon looks cool though) and the voice of Rachel Weisz as Saphira, the good dragon. None of these actors help the movie past a 2 star rating though.
I feel bad about it, since it is a rich genre with lots of potential, as Peter Jackson showed with Lord of the Rings.
Movie: "Pathfinder" (1.5/5) 2007
Saw this at the theater today.
Below average film that could have been so much better.
Premise: Viking ship crashes in North America 500 years before Columbus. A Viking boy is the only survivour and is taken in by the natives.
Jump ahead 15 years, and the boy has grown into Karl Urban, kiwi mega-hunk. Now, the Vikings have returned and they aren't there for tea and crumpets. Urban has no problem carrying the role. He's got loads of presence, and I see lots of leading roles for him in the future.
The main problem is that the direction is muddled and hard to follow. Not enough time was spent on the action sequences and choreography, so there are only quick flashes of sequences that are blurry and indistinct.
Of course, the direction is just one of the strange decisions from the film makers.
- The colour scheme is bordering on black and white, but with bright colour every once in a while; the scenes with colour weren't important or significant, and the choices seemed somewhat random (maybe trying to ride on the success of films like "Sin City"?).
- There were all kinds of strange anachronisms, like stairs in a native village (believe me - never happened - it's like finding a samurai sword there)
- Rituals were thrown in from lots of different Indian tribes that had nothing to do with the one they were dealing with in the movie, and even some Indian rituals and practices given to the Vikings - very odd.
While a film like Apocalypto put significant effort into being historically accurate, it felt very much like they didn't want to bother in Pathfinder. It comes through strongly in look and feel.
Below average film that could have been so much better.
Premise: Viking ship crashes in North America 500 years before Columbus. A Viking boy is the only survivour and is taken in by the natives.
Jump ahead 15 years, and the boy has grown into Karl Urban, kiwi mega-hunk. Now, the Vikings have returned and they aren't there for tea and crumpets. Urban has no problem carrying the role. He's got loads of presence, and I see lots of leading roles for him in the future.
The main problem is that the direction is muddled and hard to follow. Not enough time was spent on the action sequences and choreography, so there are only quick flashes of sequences that are blurry and indistinct.
Of course, the direction is just one of the strange decisions from the film makers.
- The colour scheme is bordering on black and white, but with bright colour every once in a while; the scenes with colour weren't important or significant, and the choices seemed somewhat random (maybe trying to ride on the success of films like "Sin City"?).
- There were all kinds of strange anachronisms, like stairs in a native village (believe me - never happened - it's like finding a samurai sword there)
- Rituals were thrown in from lots of different Indian tribes that had nothing to do with the one they were dealing with in the movie, and even some Indian rituals and practices given to the Vikings - very odd.
While a film like Apocalypto put significant effort into being historically accurate, it felt very much like they didn't want to bother in Pathfinder. It comes through strongly in look and feel.
Movie: "Casino Royale" (4/5 Stars) 2006
Best Bond film ever. Nothing silly, no missles being launched from cars, ejection seats, evil genius hideouts and so on. High on action, well executed, fun to watch (often painful looking) - what other Bond films should be.
If you like Bond movies, I don't know if you'll like this, it's significantly different from the last 4 or 5, which were, in my opinion, Hollywood fluff and written by committee.
If you don't like Bond, but like other action movies, then give this a go - it's high octane spy action.
I'm still not crazy for Daniel Craig - he's a good Bond, but has this silly little pout he does - as far as Bond girls - Eva Green is exotic ou la la! I've been a fan since I saw "Kingdom of Heaven".
If you like Bond movies, I don't know if you'll like this, it's significantly different from the last 4 or 5, which were, in my opinion, Hollywood fluff and written by committee.
If you don't like Bond, but like other action movies, then give this a go - it's high octane spy action.
I'm still not crazy for Daniel Craig - he's a good Bond, but has this silly little pout he does - as far as Bond girls - Eva Green is exotic ou la la! I've been a fan since I saw "Kingdom of Heaven".
Thursday, April 26, 2007
Book: "The Pleasure of Finding Things Out" by Richard Feynman (5/5 stars)
This is a brilliant book, full of cool science and cool stories, some exceptionally funny.
Feynman looks at not only science and what science is, but at religion and the supernatural. He also looks at "cargo cult science" and how it goes through the motions of science but isn't science at all.
I was thoroughly entertained by each and every story, and recommend it to anyone who is curious at all about the natural world.
I recently read "Six Easy Pieces", another of Feynman's books, but it didn't capture Feynman's voice the way this one ones. I reviewed that book here.
If you are interested in this book, I highly recommend Feynman's 1979 lectures at Auckland University. They are well worth watching if you are even remotely interested. They are apparently one of the few freely available videos of his lectures.
Hi statement that "science is irrelevant" in the modern world held me for an entire chapter while he waited to explain it. It is too sad, but is true anyway. Today's modern world isn't a scientific one at all. It would be better if it was.
Feynman's attitude towards the world, one of accepting the unknown and having doubt about everything is one that deeply affects me and I strongly agree with. The NEED to know everything is just silly and we should be accepting of the unknown. Too many people feel the need to fill in the unknown with silly things that aren't necessary - that's where astrology comes from and who need that?
Feynman looks at not only science and what science is, but at religion and the supernatural. He also looks at "cargo cult science" and how it goes through the motions of science but isn't science at all.
I was thoroughly entertained by each and every story, and recommend it to anyone who is curious at all about the natural world.
I recently read "Six Easy Pieces", another of Feynman's books, but it didn't capture Feynman's voice the way this one ones. I reviewed that book here.
If you are interested in this book, I highly recommend Feynman's 1979 lectures at Auckland University. They are well worth watching if you are even remotely interested. They are apparently one of the few freely available videos of his lectures.
Hi statement that "science is irrelevant" in the modern world held me for an entire chapter while he waited to explain it. It is too sad, but is true anyway. Today's modern world isn't a scientific one at all. It would be better if it was.
Feynman's attitude towards the world, one of accepting the unknown and having doubt about everything is one that deeply affects me and I strongly agree with. The NEED to know everything is just silly and we should be accepting of the unknown. Too many people feel the need to fill in the unknown with silly things that aren't necessary - that's where astrology comes from and who need that?
Saturday, April 21, 2007
Review of recent movies - April, 2007
I've gotten a little behind on my movie reviews - I've seen a few in the last 2 months and have not kept up:
Recent good movies (4+ stars):
300 (****1/2) - reviewed here.
Recent Ok movies (3-4 stars)
Monster House (***) - funny animated movie about the neighbour's animated house.
Ice Age II (***1/2) - better than the first - lots of funny bits
The Departed (***) - could have been better without 1 scene
The Illusionist (***) - good in many ways, but the ending was too easy, and was baby fed to the audience
Children of Men (***) - great concept, good actors and sets - pacing and story let it down
Rozencrantz & Gildenstern are Dead (***) - had some hilarious pieces (the question game), but is dependent on how well you know Hamlet - great if you do
Wedding Crashers (***1/2) - much funnier than expected. Liked it all the way through - a character in a suicidal mood was reading a book called "Don't Jump"
Naked State (***1/2) - ended up being an excellent documentary about an artist taking photos of large groups of naked people - the photos are amazing.
The Dark (***) - Had all the stereotypical creepy stuff - pretty well done
The Most Fertile Man in Ireland (***) - Some amusement - only ok though
Recent Bad movies (less than 3 stars):
Babel (**) - Acting, directing, production value, writing, all awesome, but the scenes don't belong all in the same movie. It was distracting. AND, there was a strobe scene that went on FOREVER!
Half Light (**) - dull Demi Moore comeback movie. Not worth it.
The Wicker Man (**) - Nicolas Cage in a somewhat unpredictable, but ultimately unsatisfying thriller
Beowulf & Grendle (*) - complete pants! Despite liking Gerard Butler, nothing saves this completely lame adaptation of the classic epic.
I Love Your Work (*1/2) - Weirdness. Giovanni Ribisi plays a superstar actor caught in a decadent life, however, you're never sure what is actually happening, as the flashbacks and side scenes blend together with a confused main character imagining his life differently and his past... I don't recommend it.
Recent good movies (4+ stars):
300 (****1/2) - reviewed here.
Recent Ok movies (3-4 stars)
Monster House (***) - funny animated movie about the neighbour's animated house.
Ice Age II (***1/2) - better than the first - lots of funny bits
The Departed (***) - could have been better without 1 scene
The Illusionist (***) - good in many ways, but the ending was too easy, and was baby fed to the audience
Children of Men (***) - great concept, good actors and sets - pacing and story let it down
Rozencrantz & Gildenstern are Dead (***) - had some hilarious pieces (the question game), but is dependent on how well you know Hamlet - great if you do
Wedding Crashers (***1/2) - much funnier than expected. Liked it all the way through - a character in a suicidal mood was reading a book called "Don't Jump"
Naked State (***1/2) - ended up being an excellent documentary about an artist taking photos of large groups of naked people - the photos are amazing.
The Dark (***) - Had all the stereotypical creepy stuff - pretty well done
The Most Fertile Man in Ireland (***) - Some amusement - only ok though
Recent Bad movies (less than 3 stars):
Babel (**) - Acting, directing, production value, writing, all awesome, but the scenes don't belong all in the same movie. It was distracting. AND, there was a strobe scene that went on FOREVER!
Half Light (**) - dull Demi Moore comeback movie. Not worth it.
The Wicker Man (**) - Nicolas Cage in a somewhat unpredictable, but ultimately unsatisfying thriller
Beowulf & Grendle (*) - complete pants! Despite liking Gerard Butler, nothing saves this completely lame adaptation of the classic epic.
I Love Your Work (*1/2) - Weirdness. Giovanni Ribisi plays a superstar actor caught in a decadent life, however, you're never sure what is actually happening, as the flashbacks and side scenes blend together with a confused main character imagining his life differently and his past... I don't recommend it.
Thursday, April 12, 2007
Book: "Stone" by Adam Roberts (2/5 stars)
I found a link to this novel on Amazon.com in someone's listmania as one of the great sci-fi books.
The concept is this - we start in a prison where the one murderer among the future's trillions of humans is kept. Someone breaks him out to carry out some terrible deed.
Sounds interesting doesn't it? It is - a little anyway. There are bits and pieces here and there that are pretty good, but mainly, the author takes us on tours of various planets, where you get to see wonderfully alien, but beautiful landscapes.
Somewhere along the way, in the middle of a description of one of these strange planets, it hit me that it was all made up. Somehow the author failed to trap me in the story and I could picture him making up all of these planets, maybe even thinking how clever he'd made this or that, and I never got back to it.
At that point, it became like reading a Lonely Planet Guide to some made up place and I didn't really see the value of it. The reviews of the novel on Amazon go on and on about how it's original and a great read, but I just saw it as a travelogue. It did almost nothing for me.
The concept is this - we start in a prison where the one murderer among the future's trillions of humans is kept. Someone breaks him out to carry out some terrible deed.
Sounds interesting doesn't it? It is - a little anyway. There are bits and pieces here and there that are pretty good, but mainly, the author takes us on tours of various planets, where you get to see wonderfully alien, but beautiful landscapes.
Somewhere along the way, in the middle of a description of one of these strange planets, it hit me that it was all made up. Somehow the author failed to trap me in the story and I could picture him making up all of these planets, maybe even thinking how clever he'd made this or that, and I never got back to it.
At that point, it became like reading a Lonely Planet Guide to some made up place and I didn't really see the value of it. The reviews of the novel on Amazon go on and on about how it's original and a great read, but I just saw it as a travelogue. It did almost nothing for me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
