Very good book about a little known colonial campaign - the battle in South Arabia where the British took on the locals and eventually left their old colony of Aden, which could have been the Hong Kong of the Middle East but instead became a backwater.
Walker has done his research and is a good writer, thorough and clear. It's kind of a depressing book in which no one seems to have covered themselves in glory - the foreign office who came up with messy ideas, the strategists, the local politicians, the British politicians, local soldiers.
It does lack colourful characters - the fault of history rather than Walker - though it was the bagpipe playing Major who came in and kicked butt towards the end.
Tuesday, March 27, 2018
Friday, March 23, 2018
Movie review - "Streets of Fire" (1984) ****
Final saw this movie on the big screen. At the end I felt this warm glow and I thought "I have such unconditional love for this film".
I've seen it so many times. I know the flaws, I know the flaws better than anyone - not just stuff that I think was simply not mainstream taste (mixing JD films and musicals and action movies and setting it in a never-never land) which to me is part of the film's charm... but things like the fact momentum drops out once Lane is rescued, the purpose of the Baby Doll character.
I get annoyed that the filmmakers blame Michael Pare for the film's failure instead of the structural flaws and over-mixing genres. Diane Lane's role should've been played by a real singer.
And the film doesn't work with a crowd. I saw it in Santa Monica at a theatre - they weren't getting into it. They weren't rising to it. Basic scenes worked - Pare's intro, the abduction and rescue of Lane, Moranis doing stuff... but that was about it.
I've seen it so many times. I know the flaws, I know the flaws better than anyone - not just stuff that I think was simply not mainstream taste (mixing JD films and musicals and action movies and setting it in a never-never land) which to me is part of the film's charm... but things like the fact momentum drops out once Lane is rescued, the purpose of the Baby Doll character.
I get annoyed that the filmmakers blame Michael Pare for the film's failure instead of the structural flaws and over-mixing genres. Diane Lane's role should've been played by a real singer.
And the film doesn't work with a crowd. I saw it in Santa Monica at a theatre - they weren't getting into it. They weren't rising to it. Basic scenes worked - Pare's intro, the abduction and rescue of Lane, Moranis doing stuff... but that was about it.
Thursday, March 22, 2018
Book review - "Charlton Heston: Hollywood's Last Icon" by Matc Eliot (2017)
A disappointing book. Heston is a fascinating star - big, tall, stiff, capable of good work, a really wide variety of movies. He had a genuine sense of duty which prompted him to do sterling work for the AFI, SAG, the government (visiting troops in Vietnam), the Civil Rights movement, and, unfortunately (to me at any rate), the NRA.
Eliot's book is very strong on the later phase of Heston's life - his family life, the difficulties in his marriage (with a firey woman who at times resented him and suffered migranes... it's clear ole Chuck was whipped), his battles with Alzheimers (very moving), his dealings with the NRA (which seem to have been prompted by a desire for attention and something to do as much as anything). He's helped by talking to Heston's kids and NRA people - who credit Heston with helping make them more powerful, which is a horrible legacy.
It's also pretty good on Heston's upbringing - he was devastated by his parent's divorce, his mother didn't want him to see his father, his mother had an affair and married the bloke who tried to bond with Charlton. He was solitary and awkward, but was tall, commanding and good act.
The film is weak on Heston's career. It sort of rehashes what's in his diaries, skims his TV and theatre work, doesn't really analyse the acting. There are irritating factual errors and the writing is uninspired. Heston deserved a better book.
Eliot's book is very strong on the later phase of Heston's life - his family life, the difficulties in his marriage (with a firey woman who at times resented him and suffered migranes... it's clear ole Chuck was whipped), his battles with Alzheimers (very moving), his dealings with the NRA (which seem to have been prompted by a desire for attention and something to do as much as anything). He's helped by talking to Heston's kids and NRA people - who credit Heston with helping make them more powerful, which is a horrible legacy.
It's also pretty good on Heston's upbringing - he was devastated by his parent's divorce, his mother didn't want him to see his father, his mother had an affair and married the bloke who tried to bond with Charlton. He was solitary and awkward, but was tall, commanding and good act.
The film is weak on Heston's career. It sort of rehashes what's in his diaries, skims his TV and theatre work, doesn't really analyse the acting. There are irritating factual errors and the writing is uninspired. Heston deserved a better book.
Saturday, March 17, 2018
Book review - "Our Friends Beneath the Sands: The Foreign Legion in France's Colonial Conquests 1870-1935" by Martin Windrow
Excellent look at the French Foreign Legion by Windrow, taking a rather random time period. The book lacks focus - it goes all over the world, like the Legion - Algeria, Morocco, Vietnam, Dahomey - cutting out in the 1930s.
Full of bright, vivid stories - sieges in exotic forts, battles in the mud. I really enjoyed the stuff on Beau Geste and PC Wren, too.
Full of bright, vivid stories - sieges in exotic forts, battles in the mud. I really enjoyed the stuff on Beau Geste and PC Wren, too.
Movie review – “Secret of the Incas” (1954) **
All the elements of an exciting action film are here – a beautiful
mysterious woman (Nicole Maurey),a villain (Thomas Mitchell), a rival (Robert
Young), exotic locations and locals.
But its slow and talky. It takes 40 minutes – 40! – for the
trip to start. There’s far too much chat and not enough intrigue. Robert Young’s
character is completely wasted – is he good? Is he bad?
A genuine disappointment.
Friday, March 09, 2018
Movie review - "Under Siege 2" (1994) **1/2
By the standards of later Segal movies this is a masterpiece but there's no denying it's a drop from the first.
Instead of Tommy Lee Jones and Gary Busey there's Eric Bognosian and Everett McGill, both of whom are fine actually just not as good - Boganosian cuts lose and McGill gives a good wound-up performance (though I could've done without the creepy leching on Katherine Heigl).
Instead of a battleship there's a train, which isn't that bad a substitute - although some of the back projection is unconvincing.
Instead of Erica Eleniak there's Morris Chestnut, who isn't as pretty and isn't as fun - and means there isn't a love story (they sort of hint there's going to be one with this conductor person but she doesn't last). There's also Heigl, who's Seagal's niece - she's a good looking girl, but it feels a bit, I don't know, lech-y to have her there.
Geoff Murphy's direction is competent, I liked the views of the rockies and there's some decent action and stunts. Seagal kicks a lot of arse and has a good time.
There's some cute 90s technology - references to faxes and CDs.
Instead of Tommy Lee Jones and Gary Busey there's Eric Bognosian and Everett McGill, both of whom are fine actually just not as good - Boganosian cuts lose and McGill gives a good wound-up performance (though I could've done without the creepy leching on Katherine Heigl).
Instead of a battleship there's a train, which isn't that bad a substitute - although some of the back projection is unconvincing.
Instead of Erica Eleniak there's Morris Chestnut, who isn't as pretty and isn't as fun - and means there isn't a love story (they sort of hint there's going to be one with this conductor person but she doesn't last). There's also Heigl, who's Seagal's niece - she's a good looking girl, but it feels a bit, I don't know, lech-y to have her there.
Geoff Murphy's direction is competent, I liked the views of the rockies and there's some decent action and stunts. Seagal kicks a lot of arse and has a good time.
There's some cute 90s technology - references to faxes and CDs.
Thursday, March 08, 2018
Movie review - "Under Siege" (1992) ***1/2
In hindsight this would be the peak of Steven Seagal's career - good story, good director, excellent villains, strong support cast, high production values... He looks so slim, so relaxed and confident, it was kind of sad.
The Die Hard on a boat stuff works well - it's solid and entertaining with plenty of good set up stuff: Seagal working as a cook, the treacherous XO (Gary Busey), the loyal captain (Patrick O'Neal), the head terrorist being a CIA renegade (Tommy Lee Jones), Seagal's main ally being a stripper who jumps out of a cake (Erika Eleniak).
Funnily enough the end of this got a bit wonky - less exciting with people sitting around pressing buttons, less human somehow, and a not very convincing fight between Jones and Seagal (though it is funny how the knife is rammed into a dummy Jones' head - I always remembered the bad slow motion from this sequence). I felt he should've killed Gary Busey hand to hand.
There's not much chemistry between Seagal and Eleniak, she's more like his kid sister, but it's good to have her along. There's a nice "team" vibe you didn't get in many Seagal movies - especially when he teams up with some other people who didn't get caught.
Colm Meaney adds extra acting firepower as another baddy. But the film is stolen by Busey and Jones who have the time of their lives, acting up a storm - Busey's even in drag. Two great villains. It's a fun movie.
The Die Hard on a boat stuff works well - it's solid and entertaining with plenty of good set up stuff: Seagal working as a cook, the treacherous XO (Gary Busey), the loyal captain (Patrick O'Neal), the head terrorist being a CIA renegade (Tommy Lee Jones), Seagal's main ally being a stripper who jumps out of a cake (Erika Eleniak).
Funnily enough the end of this got a bit wonky - less exciting with people sitting around pressing buttons, less human somehow, and a not very convincing fight between Jones and Seagal (though it is funny how the knife is rammed into a dummy Jones' head - I always remembered the bad slow motion from this sequence). I felt he should've killed Gary Busey hand to hand.
There's not much chemistry between Seagal and Eleniak, she's more like his kid sister, but it's good to have her along. There's a nice "team" vibe you didn't get in many Seagal movies - especially when he teams up with some other people who didn't get caught.
Colm Meaney adds extra acting firepower as another baddy. But the film is stolen by Busey and Jones who have the time of their lives, acting up a storm - Busey's even in drag. Two great villains. It's a fun movie.
Wednesday, March 07, 2018
Book review - "Director's Cut: My Life in Film" by Ted Kotcheff
Ted Kotcheff has had a really, really strong career - lots of first-class television in Canada and the UK, plenty of stage productions in London (something of which I was unaware before reading this book), broke into directing features in Britain relatively young, moving over to a Hollywood career, turning out a fair few classics in all genres - Canadian coming of age (The Apprenticeship of Duddy Kravtiz), Australian movies (Wake in Fright), gritty football dramas (North Dallas Forty), comedies (Fun with Dick and Jane, Weekend at Bernies), action (First Blood) - and nicely winding up his career with a long stint on Law and Order SUV as well as publishing some poems.
You wonder then why he's such a whinger. He whinges about how poor his family was when growing up, how his parents smacked him around, how the Canadian government were useless, how the Canadian funding authorities didn't give him more money, how the US government wouldn't let him into the country. Ted has a healthy sense of entitlement which presumably helped power him through a long career.
To be fair the book isn't all whining I was just surprised that there was so much in it... especially considering the opportunities Kotcheff got in Canada and the UK and Hollywood (good luck if you were a person of colour or a woman, Ted.. or maybe a bit older or younger at the time). Still, an interesting read.
You wonder then why he's such a whinger. He whinges about how poor his family was when growing up, how his parents smacked him around, how the Canadian government were useless, how the Canadian funding authorities didn't give him more money, how the US government wouldn't let him into the country. Ted has a healthy sense of entitlement which presumably helped power him through a long career.
To be fair the book isn't all whining I was just surprised that there was so much in it... especially considering the opportunities Kotcheff got in Canada and the UK and Hollywood (good luck if you were a person of colour or a woman, Ted.. or maybe a bit older or younger at the time). Still, an interesting read.
Tuesday, March 06, 2018
Script review - "Aliens" by James Cameron
Stunningly good script - has a strong basic idea (returning to the alien planet), builds logically. Great military and matter-of-fact sci fi; very good structure: set up, travel to planet, arrive, things go haywire, rescue, respite and find kid, another attack, flee, almost all die, rescue kid, final battle. (I did always feel the final battle between Ripley and mother was one too many but it is cathartic.) Great characteristation.
It reminds me in some ways of Attack of the Crab Monsters in its structure and shooting gallery structure. The script was well executed but the greatness of this is already present in the script.
It reminds me in some ways of Attack of the Crab Monsters in its structure and shooting gallery structure. The script was well executed but the greatness of this is already present in the script.
Monday, March 05, 2018
Movie review - "The Window" (1949) ***1/2
One of the triumphs of Dore Schary's brief regime at RKO - he plasters his name on it - a tight, well done noir adapted from a Cornell Woolrich story. Woollrich provided the basis for many a strong noir - had a gift for great ideas, like this one: the boy who cried wolf, only it's a murder.
Bobby Driscoll is excellent as the kid, an only child who livens up his life with lying. Arthur Kennedy and Barbara Hale are his stressed out parents - in many ways this is a film of its time and place, with Kennedy working night shifts, and mom distracted, and dad locking the kid in his room.
Paul Stewart and Ruth Roman are the murderous neighbours. I liked Roman here, looking tired and seemingly without make up, more than I had in her other movies. It's well directed by Ted Tetzlaff, has a great semi documentary feel. I don't want to over praise it, it's a good, solid B but very well done.
Bobby Driscoll is excellent as the kid, an only child who livens up his life with lying. Arthur Kennedy and Barbara Hale are his stressed out parents - in many ways this is a film of its time and place, with Kennedy working night shifts, and mom distracted, and dad locking the kid in his room.
Paul Stewart and Ruth Roman are the murderous neighbours. I liked Roman here, looking tired and seemingly without make up, more than I had in her other movies. It's well directed by Ted Tetzlaff, has a great semi documentary feel. I don't want to over praise it, it's a good, solid B but very well done.
Book review - "The Mystery of Dr Fu Manchu" by Sax Rohmer (1913)
The first Fu Manchu novel feels like a collection of serial episodes rather than a cohesive whole... It's about a pair of Holmes/Watson rip offs, Neyland Smith and Dr Petrie, chasing after the white hating Dr Fu Manchu. The story is of course very racist - it's all about yellow domination of the world. It is very fast paced and exciting a lot of the time too - lots of escapes and traps and last-minute reveals and really spanks along. There's a Chinese girl who falls for Petrie and the wire jacket and opium dens. The constant escapes and near misses did get wearying after a while.
Sunday, March 04, 2018
TV review - "Breaking Bad" (2008-13) Complete series *****
I resisted this for a while because people kept trying to shove it down my throat but it is a very good show. A simple, brilliant idea is very well developed - who isn't on Walter White's side by the end of ep one, after he's been diagnosed with terminal cancer, has a pregnant wife and disabled son, works three jobs, and faces an enormous health bill?
It kicks off an epic journey with plenty of twists and turns. It's one of the best serial dramas I've seen - in that things that happen are rarely forgotten, they have ramifications that echo.
Some random thoughts:
* season 3 I think the praise that the show had gotten went to their heads a little with some OTT visuals and the super-assassin twins
* they never did that much with the teenage son - he never really got his own storyline
* I get that some people think the criticism of Skyler was misogynistic - maybe it was. But the grumpy cat face the actress wore all the time didn't help. She did nag - I'm sorry I know that's a tough word but she did, we'd see Walt go off cooking meth and evading assassins during the day and she'd give him a hard time for forgetting dinner. The performance didn't really have much humour or warmth in it. It was effective in the later seasons though.
* they never used the school setting that much - I figured he would sell to/use students, but he didn't.
* the villains/antagonists were some of the greatest of all time - Gus the crime lord with undiagnosed PTSD, Mike the grand-daughter loving tough guy, Todd the cheerful Nazi, Lydia the sugar addict. Superb.
* so many amazing moments but perhaps number one is Lydia begging for her body to be discovered by her daughter so she didn't think her mother had abandoned her.
* Walter White never seemed to have any fun as a drug king pin. He bought a sports car - that was about it. The dude could never lighten up.
* my favourite support character was Hank Schrader - who is established as a buffoon first off but is soon revealed to be a tough, dogged, smart agent who loves his family and who goes to his death bravely...
* the main thing Walter White never seemed to learn - how to resolve problems without killing people. Him and the Roman Empire!
* the moment that really got my gut - when Jesse's nice girlfriend is shot by Todd. So pointless, so mean. I get why they did it from a story point of view, it just felt so depressing.
It kicks off an epic journey with plenty of twists and turns. It's one of the best serial dramas I've seen - in that things that happen are rarely forgotten, they have ramifications that echo.
Some random thoughts:
* season 3 I think the praise that the show had gotten went to their heads a little with some OTT visuals and the super-assassin twins
* they never did that much with the teenage son - he never really got his own storyline
* I get that some people think the criticism of Skyler was misogynistic - maybe it was. But the grumpy cat face the actress wore all the time didn't help. She did nag - I'm sorry I know that's a tough word but she did, we'd see Walt go off cooking meth and evading assassins during the day and she'd give him a hard time for forgetting dinner. The performance didn't really have much humour or warmth in it. It was effective in the later seasons though.
* they never used the school setting that much - I figured he would sell to/use students, but he didn't.
* the villains/antagonists were some of the greatest of all time - Gus the crime lord with undiagnosed PTSD, Mike the grand-daughter loving tough guy, Todd the cheerful Nazi, Lydia the sugar addict. Superb.
* so many amazing moments but perhaps number one is Lydia begging for her body to be discovered by her daughter so she didn't think her mother had abandoned her.
* Walter White never seemed to have any fun as a drug king pin. He bought a sports car - that was about it. The dude could never lighten up.
* my favourite support character was Hank Schrader - who is established as a buffoon first off but is soon revealed to be a tough, dogged, smart agent who loves his family and who goes to his death bravely...
* the main thing Walter White never seemed to learn - how to resolve problems without killing people. Him and the Roman Empire!
* the moment that really got my gut - when Jesse's nice girlfriend is shot by Todd. So pointless, so mean. I get why they did it from a story point of view, it just felt so depressing.
Saturday, March 03, 2018
Movie review - "Blackhat" (2015) ***
I enjoyed a lot of this movie - it looks great, with some genuinely different locations (Jakarta), a multi-racial cast, some excellent shoot outs, superb actors (Leeholm Wang, Viola Davis, Holt McCallany), that Michael Mann research, lots of scenes of people strutting around wearing sunglasses looking cool.
It's an odd sort of movie though. It's about hacking - but Mann seems to be continually hiding that fact with chase scenes, shoot outs, sex and fights. Really you didn't need any hacking in it.
Chris Hemsworth is handsome and charismatic and seems like a nice guy but isn't terribly convincing as either a hacker or someone who's spent a lot of time in prison.
The pacing of the movie is also odd - it kind of seems to amble along, in this airy fashion.
The romance between Hemsworth and Wei Teng gets very solid very soon - there's little time for urst, or tension, or drama... it's like they sleep together and get married, basically.
And for all the film is more diverse than the usual Hollywood action flick, it still features a finale where a couple of white guys slug it out surrounded by hundreds of faceless Asian extras who don't seem to notice what's going on.
It's an odd sort of movie though. It's about hacking - but Mann seems to be continually hiding that fact with chase scenes, shoot outs, sex and fights. Really you didn't need any hacking in it.
Chris Hemsworth is handsome and charismatic and seems like a nice guy but isn't terribly convincing as either a hacker or someone who's spent a lot of time in prison.
The pacing of the movie is also odd - it kind of seems to amble along, in this airy fashion.
The romance between Hemsworth and Wei Teng gets very solid very soon - there's little time for urst, or tension, or drama... it's like they sleep together and get married, basically.
And for all the film is more diverse than the usual Hollywood action flick, it still features a finale where a couple of white guys slug it out surrounded by hundreds of faceless Asian extras who don't seem to notice what's going on.
Movie review - "Dunkirk" (2017) ***1/2
I saw this on an airplane and maybe I had to see it on the big screen to find it amazing. It's perfectly fine - I liked the minimal dialogue, particularly as when that dialogue was spoken it tended to be on the nose. The device of using three courses of action that takes place at different times works well, and some of the cast were very good such as Tom Hardy and Cillian Murphy.
I liked the music and the photography and some bits have stayed with me - the deaths of the soldiers at the beginning, the sailor going blind, the plane being on fire at the end. Not that many of them, though. The soldier who was constantly trying to leave was a bit of a little shit - I know it was realistic but he was unpleasant to spend time with.
The film curiously pulls its emotional punches. The kid who dies on the boat wasn't the son of the boat owner (incidentally the actor who plays the son looks hilariously like a young Christopher Nolan) but a random friend of the family; we never meet the father, or any of his relatives so the death is muted. The British soldiers we focus on all live - even the pilots - but the one we spend a bit more time with is French, and he dies. None of the officers die.
It's a good movie, don't get me wrong - I'm glad I saw it. I just don't get how people think it's one of the greatest movies of the year.
I liked the music and the photography and some bits have stayed with me - the deaths of the soldiers at the beginning, the sailor going blind, the plane being on fire at the end. Not that many of them, though. The soldier who was constantly trying to leave was a bit of a little shit - I know it was realistic but he was unpleasant to spend time with.
The film curiously pulls its emotional punches. The kid who dies on the boat wasn't the son of the boat owner (incidentally the actor who plays the son looks hilariously like a young Christopher Nolan) but a random friend of the family; we never meet the father, or any of his relatives so the death is muted. The British soldiers we focus on all live - even the pilots - but the one we spend a bit more time with is French, and he dies. None of the officers die.
It's a good movie, don't get me wrong - I'm glad I saw it. I just don't get how people think it's one of the greatest movies of the year.
Movie review - "Blade Runner 2049" (2017) ***1/2
The original wasn't very popular at the box office, you know! Just saying! Because it was confusing in a lot of places - even with the voice over (which I've got to say I liked) and often gloomy. It's reputation has risen and risen in recent years and it's now a classic.
So it was brave of them to tackle a sequel - and they did it very well. Harrison Ford is back, as well as Edward James Olmos and a re-enactment of Sean Young.
I liked Ryan Gosling, Robin Wright, David Bautista, Lennie James and Ana de Armas as his fake girlfriend. Jared Leto was fine. I didn't like Sylvia Hoeks as the assassin replicant - her scenes felt tonally off, like they were from a more stock action film. Denis Villeneuve is a very good director.
There are some stunning visuals and scenes - the opening worm farm, the orphanage, the final battle. There were a frustrating amount of unanswered questions - no resolution to the fate of Leto, or the status of the revolution.
It's a very good movie, and there's much to be proud of. I never got wrapped up in it the way I did the original. It lacks a scene with the emotional power of Rutger Hauer's final moments, or the pace and suspense that comes from tracking down people who may or may not be robots.
So it was brave of them to tackle a sequel - and they did it very well. Harrison Ford is back, as well as Edward James Olmos and a re-enactment of Sean Young.
I liked Ryan Gosling, Robin Wright, David Bautista, Lennie James and Ana de Armas as his fake girlfriend. Jared Leto was fine. I didn't like Sylvia Hoeks as the assassin replicant - her scenes felt tonally off, like they were from a more stock action film. Denis Villeneuve is a very good director.
There are some stunning visuals and scenes - the opening worm farm, the orphanage, the final battle. There were a frustrating amount of unanswered questions - no resolution to the fate of Leto, or the status of the revolution.
It's a very good movie, and there's much to be proud of. I never got wrapped up in it the way I did the original. It lacks a scene with the emotional power of Rutger Hauer's final moments, or the pace and suspense that comes from tracking down people who may or may not be robots.
Movie review - "Geostorm" (2017) ** (warning: spoilers)
Gloriously silly action/sci fi movie which really needed to be made DOV by Jim Wynorski or Fred Olen Ray but instead got the $100 million-plus treatment.
And you know something? Some of this isn't too bad - the investigative story, uncovering who is the traitor and who is behind sabotaging the station, is very solid - and pleasingly complex: it's got a Seven Days in May type vibe with the baddies being American rogues who want to turn the station into a weapon. Abbie Cornish gets to star in a really fun action sequence driving a cab, spinning around and driving backwards, blasting a gun at a pursuing car (I wondered why she accepted this thankless part - apart from the play cheque of course - until I saw this sequence).
There are some good actors running loose - Ed Harris, Andy Garcia, Cornish - all whom would've been better in the leads than Gerard Butler, who looks like a former football player gone to seed, and Jim Sturgess, who just looks like an idiot (disclosure: I've never liked Sturgess in anything). The special effects are brilliant and there's some good action sequences.
But the central notion just feels silly and untrue - a space station that can control weather - it just doesn't feel believable, even in the science fiction world. (If they were going to use this idea, I felt they could've really committed to the idea and used it more.)
I'd also add that while the film sucks up to China a little by saying the US developed the satellite with China, there's only one Asian actor of any decent size in the film and he dies after about ten minutes.
And you know something? Some of this isn't too bad - the investigative story, uncovering who is the traitor and who is behind sabotaging the station, is very solid - and pleasingly complex: it's got a Seven Days in May type vibe with the baddies being American rogues who want to turn the station into a weapon. Abbie Cornish gets to star in a really fun action sequence driving a cab, spinning around and driving backwards, blasting a gun at a pursuing car (I wondered why she accepted this thankless part - apart from the play cheque of course - until I saw this sequence).
There are some good actors running loose - Ed Harris, Andy Garcia, Cornish - all whom would've been better in the leads than Gerard Butler, who looks like a former football player gone to seed, and Jim Sturgess, who just looks like an idiot (disclosure: I've never liked Sturgess in anything). The special effects are brilliant and there's some good action sequences.
But the central notion just feels silly and untrue - a space station that can control weather - it just doesn't feel believable, even in the science fiction world. (If they were going to use this idea, I felt they could've really committed to the idea and used it more.)
I'd also add that while the film sucks up to China a little by saying the US developed the satellite with China, there's only one Asian actor of any decent size in the film and he dies after about ten minutes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)