I Am Legend

The novel I Am Legend is considered a modern horror story, the forerunner of such apocalyptic movies as Dawn of the Dead and 28 Days Later, and games/movies like Resident Evil, and yet, when you read the book, it is clearly science fiction, not horror. There are no graphic depictions of someone being dismembered, no cruel descriptions of barbaric behaviour, but rather there is a breathtaking speculative attempt to apply science to superstition.

OK, so you’ve seen the movie, but have you read the book? Unlike most movie adaptations, from the Twilight saga to Harry Potter and more recently The Hunger Games, this novel is entirely different to the movie, and that allows both to coexist quite merrily, without comparisons as to which is the better.

I Am Legend is a present day what-if scenario applied to vampires, asking the question, what if Dracula was real and vampires gained the upper hand on modern society? It was written in 1954, but you wouldn’t know it. The depiction of suburbia and the sprawling cityscape of Los Angeles reads like it was written yesterday.

Like most book-turned-movie adaptations, Will Smith’s 2007 film version of I Am Legend is a stunning visual depiction, with several carefully crafted improvements, but it lacks the sense of depth you find in the novel. Although the movie is true to the character of Neville, and his fits of rage and sense of despair, the science portion of this work of science fiction is lost. Sure, Will Smith is a scientist, he has a lab with test-tubes and conducts experiments, but the movie is missing the depth of reasoning you find in the novel. And it’s the scientific rationale, the inquiring mind, the rational thinking that makes I Am Legend a sensational novel. We see some depth of consideration given to all the various facets of the vampire mythology. Why are vampires repelled by garlic? Why does a stake through the chest kill them when bullets don’t. Why are they frightened by the sign of the cross? And we get to watch as Neville exercises his reason to explore the various possibilities in a plausible manner.

The only criticism I have of this novel is the speed with which the conclusion comes about. The tension grows, the sense of interest grows, the curiosity grows, and then suddenly there’s a rush to close out the story. Given Richard Matheson‘s depth of writing and the amount of material he had to explore, I suspect there is much more than could be made of the ending, and yet, there was only ever one way it could end. Matheson knows that and so does the reader.

If you’re looking for some great reading material, I highly recommend I Am Legend, as eBooks go, it is absurdly expensive, so you might want to pick up a second-hand paperback copy from Amazon and save yourself a few bucks. If you’re really brave, try the audio version at night, alone.

PS. If you’ve seen the movie, but haven’t seen the original ending to the movie, it is well worth watching. Personally, I think they spoilt the movie by giving us the sanitized, and-they-all-lived-happily-ever-after ending instead of this gritty, real-world ending that differs from the book, but is in much the same spirit.

 

Movies & Books

I just finished watching Cowboys & Aliens with the kids. Apart from the numerous plot holes, absurd bravado and testosterone-fuelled ego-fest, it’s not bad as far as mindless entertainment goes on a Saturday night. Watching the movie, though, I couldn’t help but see the shortcoming of movies in general. Visually, this movie is astounding. It has mind-bending special effects, with molten gold being sucked up in thin strands, in defiance of gravity. The aliens are like ugly on an ape, and look particularly barbaric/primitive for a race that has achieved interstellar travel, but the blue laser-like blasts and flying scout ships were a visual feast. And yet, there in lies the problem, movies excite with their action, but they fail to achieve the depth of a book because the imagination is never engaged. Read a book, and your imagination is guided, but ultimately the view you have is your own, any imagery or special effects are entirely yours. Reading is active, engaging, whereas watching a movie is passive, directed.

Reading is a remarkably versatile act. Get the right book, and you can be lost in orbit around a star light years from Earth for days on end.

Although the bulk of our communication is in words, there are subtleties that reach beyond language. We speak volumes with our gestures, facial expressions & posture. In life, touch and smell also come into play when you shake hands, or meet someone wearing perfume, or talk to someone having just finished up at the gym. Movies, at least, capture some of this non-verbal communication, but books don’t, not unless the author deliberately brings these elements into the text. Novels, it seems, are far more limited than movies, or are they?

Ultimately, fiction is about the suspension of disbelief, the willingness of a reader/viewer to ignore reality and inhabit an alternate world, one sculptured by another. The strength of novels comes from their limitation. Being restricted to just words, they can evoke every sense, even taste. Whereas a movie is dependent on camera angles and an actor’s versatility, a novel needs only the imagination of the reader.

Have you ever read a book and been excited about the release of the movie version, only to be disappointed when it finally comes out? Inevitably, you watch the movie and, regardless of the acting, regardless of the cinematography and special effects, you come away with the feeling something was missing. Why? There are three reasons.

Lack of imagination

Movies are passive, they replace rather than stimulate our imagination. The arts department and screenwriters have plenty of imagination. Their imagination arouses our thinking, but fails to stimulate our intellect as much as a book. We are astoundingly intelligent creatures. We need to have our minds exercised, excited. Movies do that to a degree, but no where near as well as a good novel.

Inability to internalise the character

The best movies, like Forrest Gump, allow you to internalise the main character, to identify with them, but this is extremely rare when it comes to science fiction movies. To be fair, science fiction novels generally fall short in this regard as well, but novels are written from a personal point of view. Novels allow you to see through another’s eyes, to hear their thoughts, to experience this pseudo-life in a way a movie cannot duplicate.

Lack of immersion

Ultimately, both of these lead to a lack of immersion. As engrossing as movies are they fail to sustain any depth beyond more than a few hours. A good novel, however, will capture the imagination for an extended period of time, over days or even weeks, allowing you escape to another world.

Growing up in New Zealand, I remember listening to the radio as a child. For several years, there was only one TV on our block, and it wasn’t in our living room, but we had a wall-mounted radio. I remember my mother and I sitting up to listen to War of the Worlds serialised for radio. Sitting there, my imagination was set alight by what was essentially an audio-book. To this day, when writing, I use a program called SpeakPad to listen to what I’ve written, to hear sections read back to me so as to engage my imagination. And so I’ve made sure Text-To-Speech is enabled on each of my novels because it is a variation I enjoy. Sitting there as an eight year old, the thought of an alien creature emerging from a strange, shiny cylinder, its tentacles snaking over the edge of a muddy crater, thrilled my imagination. As enjoyable as the Tom Cruise rendition was, it pales in comparison to the imagery built up in my mind all those years ago. Orson Wells, it seems, had a 70 year jump on the likes of The Blair Witch Project and Cloverfield for realism in entertainment, scaring thousands in the pre-World War II 1930s.

Will I go and watch Prometheus when it comes out at the movies? Absolutely. Will it have me on the edge of my seat? Undoubtedly. Will I find the effects and storyline dazzling? Sure. But it will be formulaic, it has to be, that’s just the nature of movies. It will be bound and limited, with stilted dialogue, limited character build up and probably no character immersion at all, but I’m sure the action will be heart-stopping. In writing the sequel to Trixie & Me my goal is to engage readers in a manner that will thrill them every bit as much as Prometheus, with some depth of characterisation you just can’t find in the movies (ambitious goal, I know, but you’ve got to shoot for the moon). Keep your eyes peeled for War coming in May/June 2012.

PS. The Orson Wells broadcast of War of the Worlds is well worth listening to. The second half, in particular, is absolutely brilliant.

 

Dreaming of Electric Sheep

Over the holidays, I got Blade Runner out on DVD and was pleasantly surprised at how convincing the screenplay, the acting and the special effects were after almost thirty years. Apparently, there are fifteen odd gaffes in the film, not counting problems with translations and subtitles, but the suspension of belief and the character immersion is such that, even knowing a couple of them didn’t spoil the film.

Science fiction is a fascinating genre in that it puts science, be it speculative, imaginary or real, in the spotlight, but the truly great science fiction stories expose how much more there is to learn about ourselves. The dramatic conclusion of Blade Runner, with the dying replicant saving the life of Deckard, his mortal adversary, is, perhaps, the greatest scene in science fiction history – an android comes to understand the true value of life while mankind treats life with disdain. I still remember the first time I heard that speech and the delivery of the final line, “Time to die,” with its ambiguity about who would die. Roy had him. Deckard was dead to rights, but Deckard lives as Roy chooses not to waste another life. And Deckard learns the lesson, in turn saving Rachel.

If you haven’t seen the sketchbook for the set design, it’s well worth flipping through.

I have mixed feelings about a reboot. I just can’t see how Blade Runner could be improved. The script writers have their work cut out for them.

 

Apollo 18

Apollo 18 is a mockumentary using the kind of faux-realism first made famous by The Blair Witch Project and Cloverfield, albeit without the absurd camera shaking that made so many people nauseous. There’s a bit of handy-cam syndrome, but only enough to add a sense of authenticity, not enough to distract from the movie.

User ratings on IMDb give Apollo 18 a five out of ten, while Rotten Tomatoes, another user-driven rating system, has the movie at two out of ten.

Ouch!

As an author that has been criticised for weak characterisation, I think that’s part of the problem with Apollo 18. We, the audience, never really got to identify with the astronauts before they were thrown into the fray.

Warning! Spoilers

On a technical level, the movie has also been criticised for things like the footprints being too close together and too evenly distributed. With the exception of the actual Moon footage, the motion of the astronauts is too much like a shuffle and lacks the free, flowing, bouncing motion of an actual moonwalk. Clearly, faking a moon landing in the 21st Century, with a multimillion dollar budget, is not easy. It makes you wonder how they faked four moon landings in the 60s, or, perhaps they didn’t, perhaps Armstrong and Aldrin actually walked on the Moon. (Of course they did. I’m being facetious)

The use of sound within sections of Apollo 18 was misleading, with the astronauts hearing the alien creatures while on an EVA, something that’s impossible in a vacuum.

Also, the alien/rock creatures have absurdly fast motion/metabolism for something living in the coldest place on the moon, a crater that never sees sunlight. And one wonders what these critters feed on when there’s not an astronaut to munch on.

Having said all that, however, I think Apollo 18 deserves far more than a two or a five out of ten. I’d rate it as seven out of ten stars. It is an ambitious movie, carried out with an admirable level of detail, particularly within the LEM. The slowly building crescendo of suspense worked well for me. Alien life on the Moon was always going to be a tough sell, but I think they succeeded far more than Transformers: Dark of the Moon, which, ironically, rated better on both IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes.

I found the discovery of a cracked Soviet cosmonaut helmet particularly poignant. It was a stunning, vivid reveal within the storyline. And, as for the original poster, with the three-toed wolf-life footprint, I was hanging out for the point we’d see what made those tracks, but it never came. Perhaps it was a case of the marketing department outpacing the writers.

I would have liked to have seen a different ending. The conclusion seemed rushed and was a bit of a let down. But, hey, I’ve been criticised for both of those points as well with Anomaly, so there’s some learning here for all. A slightly different ending and Apollo 18 could have escaped the horror genre, which really doesn’t suit the movie at all.

If you have low expectations, you’ll be very pleasantly surprised by this movie. It’s not Apollo 13, but it’s nice to see someone going back to the Moon

 

World War Z

Although, strictly speaking, zombie books and movies are in the category of horror, not science fiction, World War Z is the exception to the rule.

The title, World War Z, is an allusion to World War 2, and the parallels are obvious. The novel is written in the style of a historical review after the fact, in much the same way as overviews of WWII were the rage in the 1950s, explaining to a population that saw the war locally how things actually transpired globally. In the same way, World War Z provides answers once the fight is over.

Rather than the classic fight-or-flight survival concepts explored by most zombie flicks, WWZ looks at the social, political, military and medical implications of a world wide outbreak of zombies. And, in that regard, it offers some plausible, believable aspects of political science and social norms for consideration, each of them familiar to us but slightly altered by the flesh-eating horde.

Corporal punishment, as an example, is reintroduced by the United States of America. Although putting someone in stocks and conducting a publicflogging sounds medieval and highly unlikely, as the political leaders in this story point out, “What else were we supposed to do? Throw them in jail? Who would guard them? Who would feed them? With 200 million zombies swarming over the Continental US, we needed every able bodied man, woman and child in the fight. And, besides, public humiliation is a powerful deterrent.“ And with compelling insights like this, WWZ takes us on a global tour of the post-war world, interviewing key survivors and looking at the escalating stages of the war.

As tempting as it is, I won’t steal the thunder of Max Brooks and the military solution he contrives to stem the horde of the living dead, but I will add that such a heartless, unethical proposition is entirely plausible given the threat of human extinction.

This is not a book about zombies eating brains with guts flying everywhere, this book is about the social, political and military response. There’s a little blood and guts, but gore is not the dominate theme of the book. And it captures the different cultural attitudes of the German’s, the American’s, the Pakistani’s, the African’s, the Chinese’s, etc with surprising clarity and realism. There’s the big man African dictator syndrome, the war weary Europeans, the isolationist Israeli’s, those in denial, those profiteering from the misery and those that are bureaucratically incompetent and inert in front of the tsunami of the undead.

Oh, and the audio book version is compelling listening, reminiscent of the old radio broadcasts for War of the Worlds. You can get 10 free samples from various chapters as podcasts from the Apple store.

World War Z is a must read and when the movie with Brad Pitt comes out in 2012, I’ll be lining up to see it.

 

Frequently Asked Questions About Time Travel

You know any movie with a title that sounds like a documentary is a gutsy move so it has to be brave and adventurous and FAQs is exactly that.

The cult TV series, Dr Who, was the first pioneer in the art of in-situ sci-fi, where no effort is made to dress up the story with special effects. At first glance, such an approach, with an old-style police box, some geezer with a scarf, bow tie or wearing tennis shoes with a suit, seems a little tardy, but the focus quickly settles on the characters and their interactions over sensational, spectacular effects and a classic is born. Frequently Asked Questions  succeeds in the same vein because the characters are believable, their reactions come across as unscripted and their response to each twisting turn through space-time is believable, even when the story veers off on speculative angles.

Warning: Spoilers!

With only a handful of special effects, 90% of the story takes place in a quiet, unassuming British pub over a pint of beer as our dopey lads ponder various science fiction premises over some warm ale, but when a time-leak opens up, some what appropriately, in the public toilets, a zany series of jaunts into the future and the past unfold with unpredictable yet hilarious consequences. Bonnie Tyler’s Total Eclipse of the Heart has one wondering if the retro-styling throughout the movie was intended to place it in the early 80′s, certainly, it could pass as occurring from any point forward of then and you’ll leave this film determined never to sing Bonnie Tyler while going to the bathroom.

This is not a movie you can watch just once.

The first time through, you’re left feeling somewhat bewildered and confused but that’s OK, as all the characters are feeling the same way, so you end up feeling like you’re the fourth time traveller, along for the ride, but without a beer. Second time through you’ll start picking up on the humour and feel like one of the in-crowd, like you’ve got some insider knowledge that allows you to sit back and enjoy the ride. By the third time, you’ll find yourself splitting your sides with laughter as the cascade of subtle British humour finally hits home.

I can’t rave too much about this movie. It’s five stars from me. But, whatever you do, don’t watch it once

 

Cowboys and Aliens

This post should come with a spoiler alert, but, honestly, you can’t spoil this movie.

Sure, there’s some dead pan acting from Daniel Craig and a few too many raised eyebrows from Harrison Ford. Sure, Sam Rockwell’s talent is wasted on a cliché riddled stereotypical performance of the classic introverted struggling bartender, and even Olivia Wilde fails to make Western period fashion look good, but… somehow… this is still a thoroughly enjoyable film.

There were plot holes you could drive a semi-truck through. The “bad” aliens look like a mash-up between something from Independence Day and the Morlocks of the Time Machine.

How our bad-ass evolutionary-throwback aliens ever developed faster-than-light travel is anyone’s guess. But then, as if to make this all the more sublime, we find out that pretty young Ella is a “good” alien that’s assumed the form of Olivia Wilde. Where’s your space ship, Ella? Surely you’ve got some kind of advanced weaponry we could use? No, OK, we’ll stick with bows and arrows, spears and the odd gun then.

Ok, I’ve got that out of my system.

So why is this a good movie? Why is this a movie you cannot spoil?

The answer to that is simple… the kids. My kids loved this movie and it brought out the kid in me.

Both girls rated it 9/10. And, to be honest, once I suspended my disbelief, I thoroughly enjoyed seeing Daniel Craig, Harrison Ford, Olivia Wilde and Sam Rockwell all together in a Western action adventure film with aliens thrown in for good measure, regardless of how preposterous it was.

And, yes, I jumped too when the aliens sprang forth. I found myself jumping in my seat as much as my nine and ten year old daughters.

So… is it a classic that will stand the test of ages? No.

But it succeeds at what it sets out to accomplish, which is to provide the audience with a damn good roller coaster ride.

Get a bucket of popcorn, a coke and sit back and enjoy the ride.

 

Monsters DVD Release

Monsters was a low-budget film with big ambitions, that, I think, worked extremely well. It is War of the Worlds for Gen-Y.

The film was largely criticised as having shallow, obnoxious characters that weren’t likeable. But, for me, this is what made it work so well. The characters are true-to-life and not intended to be plastic Hollywood replicants or idealistic stereotypes.

The main lead comes across, at times, as an obnoxious asshole, while the leading lady is pretty but a little dazed by everything, but by the end of the film, they’ve been transformed by their experiences, so it’s faithful to its Gen-Y leanings. And this gives the movie the realistic, documentary-style feel it was looking for, with the dialogue and acting being largely impromptu and natural.

The premise of the movie is that a returning space probe crash-landed in Mexico, contaminating the area with alien DNA that finds itself on fertile ground.

Six years later, the quarantine zone has spread to cover the lower states within the US, and our normal-joes find themselves trapped on the wrong side of the border with the mating season about to begin.

The movie is made all the more remarkable when you realise it was shot for less than $500,000, with only two dedicated actors. Everyone else you see is a ring-in, normal people asked if they’d “run screaming in that direction,” for the next five minutes, etc. The “camera dolly” for the motion shots was a folded up jacket rested on the open window of a van driving slowly down the street.

There was also some criticism that a lot of the footage was filmed without the expressed permission of those in the area, but you have to remember “the film crew” was a bunch of mates in the back of a van, not a movie team sealing off an area for days on end.

The CGI was the result of the director sitting in his bedroom for six months, editing video footage using Adobe software, so I didn’t expect too much but was pleasantly surprised at the stunning results. There’s not a lot of special effects, but that makes the film more gritty and gives it far more substance that films that throw millions at their CGI teams.

I really liked this movie and am looking forward to getting my hands on the DVD release to look a little further behind the scenes. I think it’s an exceptional piece of work by a bunch of amateurs and shows up several big-budget Hollywood blockbusters.
If you haven’t seen Monsters, you should.

 

Rise of the Planet of the Apes

Although this post needs to be prefaced with a spoiler alert, it’s important to note that the biggest spoiler is, of course, the title of this movie. The apes win.

The Rise of the Planet of the Apes is a brilliant remake, reinventing the rebellion of intelligent apes first seen on the silver screen well over thirty years ago.

Rather than providing a movie review, I’d like to focus on one aspect of the movie that worked remarkably well, and that is the use of non-verbal communication.

Screenwriters Amanda Silver and Rick Jaffa did what few other recent screenwriters have done over the past few years and that is to take the time and care to methodically plan a storyline that is largely devoid of contrivances.

The story has a natural feel to it, strengthened by their use of non-verbal communication, which was always going to be so important about a story with apes, orangutans and chimpanzees.

Once young Caesar is brought home, the movie switches gears and a sense of pathos is built with the audience.

We see the young chimp constantly pressing up against an ornate glass window in his attic room. The window has a peculiar circular pattern.

Casear stares out through the glass he could so easily break, watching children playing on the street, people arriving in cars, confrontations with the neighbours, etc. He sees the world through that window.

Then, when imprisoned, our juvenile chimpanzee scratches the rough design of his beloved window on a concrete wall and falls asleep leaning against it. That simple imagery effectively conveying the idea of a comfort blanket to all those watching.

Still later, after the uprising has begun, we catch a fleeting glimpse of the same motif scrawled over a stop sign. It has become the symbol of the rebellion, having journeyed with the young Caesar through his adolescence into adulthood, its fleeting curves representing his life’s journey.

It’s the soft touches, the subtleties like this that allow Rise of the Planet of the Apes to communicate so effectively without words.

If you haven’t see Rise of the Planet of the Apes, what are you waiting for?