Veltigar

I finished Blade of Tyshalle, which took me longer than expected due to three reasons: Real-life has been busy as hell lately, so I sadly do not have as much time to read as I would like. Reading the novel in eBook format was a pain in the ass. I cannot express how infinitely superior reading on paper is for me. With the exception of extended holidays, where the weight of several books might be a hindrance, I just don't see a use case at all for me. I didn't feel this book as much as the first one. Caine was... very emo throughout the book, which is not a quality that endears a character to me. I also found the level of plotting subpar in comparison to book 1, and neither the enemies, nor the stakes were very interesting to me. If I were to seek for an explanation for the different landing of book 1 versus book 2, I would say that Heroes Die struck me as a fantasy novel with ambition, while Blade of Tyshalle was an ambitious book with fantasy in it. As a result, Heroes Die was fast-paced, with a lot of exhilarating sections. It was good in the way a top-tier action movie can be. Blade of Tyshalle on the other hand, felt like it was far more interested in both the metaphysics of this fictional universe and espousing a lot of lazy critiques against capitalism. Unfortunately, given the small sample size I currently have, I would say that Stover's talents lie more with the fantasy aspect. I didn't dislike Blade of Tyshalle, but I also do not really feel like I'll reread it any time soon. I have novel 3 and 4 ready to go, but I'm going to have to read a pallet cleanser in between I think.

It's different because GRRM wants it to be different. As the creator of the world, he clearly feels like he wants to slay the beast himself. That's a fair thing to want as a creative person and given how atrociously the show seemingly ended, you can appreciate why he doesn't want anyone else involved anymore. Furthermore, I would say that GRRM has never lied about his work already being finished and has always been honest about the difficulties he's facing, so none of us can really question his decision there on moral grounds (let alone legal, since he holds the IP after all). I wish entitled fans hadn't badgered him so much, for I would appreciate more updates on the writing progress, but on the other hand I'm grateful for what we got out of his world already. I'd like to see a finished series, but if ADWD is as far we get, than I'll move on. Rothfuss is in another situation altogether though. His books are enjoyable, but the constant lies and deception are a bit much. I'll be totally honest and say that I would really appreciate an ending to the trilogy, but I have also reached a point where I would do my best not to support Rothfuss financially if that were to happen. So, where I would pre-order GRRM's TWOW immediately and perhaps even take holidays to read it, I wouldn't be surprised if I waited to buy tDoS second-hand. The bolded sounds rather analogous to "wise women would learn not to be alone in a room with Harvey Weinstein" in other words, victim blaming. I didn't pitch in since I expected something fishy to occur given the patterns in Rothfuss' behaviour, but there is no doubt that the people he scammed are not too blame. Furthermore, you have no idea what his victims were going to do with their money initially . Perhaps a lot of them wanted to donate first to another charity, which would have used the money more productively? Not to mention that given Rothfuss' erratic behaviour and patterns of deceit, I wouldn't trust that charity he's associated with to be efficiently run.

I bought the eBook version of Blade of Tyshalle in anticipation of the paper copy. A very busy week both on the work and social fronts, so I have not been able to put as much time in it as I would have liked. That being said, I already really like the beginning. Without spoilers, it's great to see consequences in a fantasy book for a change: One thing I didn't get so far

On the subject of Stover, I read his Wikipedia page and I'm stunned that he hasn't published anything since 2012. For a man with such a gift, who devoted so many years of his life to writing, you wonder what he's doing today. Does anyone know whether he's active on social media or still visits cons and the like?

I'm more bothered by the difficulty of obtaining the books themselves. Unless you hoard copies like a dragon or @IlyaP, it's just too expensive/difficult to convince most people to give them a shot. I am going to recommend it to a couple of friends of mine though. At least two of them are weirdos who usually read eBooks, so they wouldn't be bothered by the difficulties facing people who like to enjoy a book in the old-fashioned way. I don't know. It's very exciting certainly, but the concept would be hard to translate to the screen I think. Not impossible of course, but you'd need a lot of money and a lot of skill to do this right. While I'd root for an adaptation in this case to give the books more exposure and Stover a payday, I'd be pretty sure that some stupid Hollywood studio would turn this into a generic fantasy film along the lines of Jason Statham's D&D film from the early 2000S (for those who still remember that one, it's okay to go to therapy to repress that memory). Interesting. Do you still feel that behind these four different books, there is one overarching vision (which would be good) or do they feel like four different books because Stover emulated other writer's each time? (which would be less appealing)

So, I don't want to bust in on whatever sexism discussion is being had, but I did manage to finish the book the day before yesterday and thought it would be a good time to share my impression. Let me begin by saying that I found the novel absolutely spectacular. It's one of the most exhilarating reads I have had in a long time and it's a good reminder of just how enjoyable speculative fiction can be when it's done right. If I have to give one point of criticism, than it's that I think the denouement of the novel is not on the same level as the set up. Stover's plotting is quite intricate, but he manages to inject so much speed into the narrative that you are swept away by the flow of the story, in the way that the best action films manage to do. He's able to maintain that narrative flow almost to the end, but then it falters a bit. Specifically (so spoilers for the first novel), For the rest, I feel like Stover has tried to address many of the criticisms I myself have with a lot of mainstream fantasy, in the sense that a lot of fantasy is inherently conservative (it's "always" a hidden prince returning to restore the mythical just version of feudalism/absolutism). Here, you can see a mature version with a rather realistic focus on the people who usually end up leading a rebellion, without shying away from just how terrible most fantasy contexts in reality would be to live in as a commoner. He's also a master at creating evil characters, as has been stated above. With the exception of Count Berne (and even he was more rounded and humanized than most antagonists elsewhere in mainstream fantasy), I felt some sympathy for each of them, despite the fact that I'd happily lock each and every character away in a cell after which I'd jettison the key if they were living in real life. I have a busy week ahead, but I'm tempted to buy the audio or e-book to already get started on book 2 before the paper copy arrives.

I have been reading Heroes Die by Matt Stover for the first time, so that has soaked up most of the spare time I have left from work. I did manage to shanghai a friend into watching Mean Girls with me. His girlfriend and I basically had to force him to give it a chance, but he ended up loving it. It's incredible how funny that movie is and still remains even though it's almost twenty years old... I could probably write several paragraphs praising all the actors (it's an incredibly stacked cast) and how great it is to see a film that really places its female cast members front and centre, but I guess that has been done already many, many times before by others here (including me). Watching it did contrast nicely with Brick a while back. I think we came to the conclusion then that Brick is a far better film noir than a high-school film, because it never seems to resemble a real high-school experience in any way, shape or form. Mean Girls on the other hand, well, it's a marvellous comedy. One of the best ever, but it is also a great high-school film. A lot of the high-school high jinks the characters pull in this film are instantly recognizable, although of course dialled up to eleven. I think that contributes a great deal to its status as a classic.

Yeah, the covers of book 2, 3 and 4 were awful. It's as if someone took a time machine and asked Dall-E to create as generic a fantasy cover as possible. A shame that Del Rey screwed him over.

For years now, I have heard all sorts of positive things about Matt Stover's science fantasy series The Acts of Caine. I never got around to reading them, mainly because the first book had a long delivery time and there was always something more readily available to take Stover's slot in my reading budget/schedule. I thus forgot about the series, but recently I visited the literature subforum and was reminded again of the existence of this series. I thus finally ordered Heroes Die (the first novel) and promptly forgot about it since it would take over 1 month to be delivered to my doorstep. I got it yesterday and am 160 pages in, and I find the novel exhilarating. If it keeps on going like this, I will happily join the chorus with all the other reviewers who rave about these books. Given how long it took to get the first book delivered to me, it seemed prudent to order the other novels as well. That turned out to be difficult. The place I live has plenty of web shops (all the big ones, plus local equivalents). Normally that gives me an embarrassment of choices in editions, bindings and delivery times. For The Acts of Caine however, it appears almost as if I live on the surface of the moon. None of the local web shops, book stores or local affiliates of the big (American) web shop had anything on offer. I ended up buying all three novels second-hand at quite a big expense. Had to check two different platforms to find all three of them. For my carbon footprint, acquiring this book series will also be a nightmare, since the four books are sourced from three different retailers, in three different countries on two continents. I know I could have easily avoided this with eBooks or Audiobooks, but my personal preference lies in owning an actual physical copy of books I really like. Why I am sharing this however, is because the ordeal of finding these books seems very strange to me. Not only because that is something we are not used to anymore (everything nowadays is always available), but also because this book series seems so popular and Stover is quite a well-known author. So, I appeal to the collective memory of the board, to see whether anyone knows why there aren't dozens of reprints of this series? Or why there aren't film adaptations of the work. I'm curious to see whether there are like IP disputes or something that keep this series out of print and thus out of reach for new generations of readers? ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Of course, also feel free to say something about the content of the books themselves, but please keep it spoiler free since I'm still catching up

I know it's easy to be cynical and make the comparison with the climate crisis. If you pause to think about it however, you will realize that the climate crisis and the infertility crisis in Children of Men are incomparable: The climate crisis has been building up to our current predicament for decades now, while the infertility crisis depicted in the film struck pretty much immediately everywhere. While both are crucial to our survival, only one of them is truly urgent measured in the span of a normal human life time (at least as long as we do not reach a tipping point and turn this place into hell). Human beings are biased towards the urgent, not towards the crucial. The climate crisis suffers from a collective action problem and is far more complex to handle. Combatting it requires certain vested interests to give up power and wealth, while certain underprivileged groups have a good argument to make that they should be exempted from hard measures. With the infertility crisis as depicted in Children of Men, everyone is affected. Random schmuck 61, 62 and 63 in Rwanda, the US or China cannot conceive, but neither can the great potentates of the world do so. Where the climate crisis has so far disproportionally affected the poor, the crisis in Children of Men will also destroy the plans of the rich. That's always a good way to get the ball rolling. Not to mention that the infertility crisis as depicted in the film is going to be much more difficult to deny Long story short, the infertility crisis as depicted in the film would be more comparable to tackling Ozone depletion, which we did very effectively with the Montreal Protocol What happened to the world's ozone hole? - BBC Future No, I have not Yeah, powerful stuff

I finally bit the bullet and rewatched Children of Men. This has been on my to-do list for years, mainly because I kept on reading on this very board just how much the film is loved. When I watched it the first time many years ago, it didn't really struck a chord with me. Its director is not someone whose work I feel connected to usually, and I barely remembered a thing about it. Having watched it again, I find I was half-wrong in my earlier assessment. The majority of the film still does nothing for me. I'm not convinced by the starting premise of the film (if a similar situation would occur in reality, I think nothing on earth would stop the whole world working together to solve the infertility crisis), nor am I specifically enamoured by any of the characters/performances. Furthermore, the technical achievements of the film (the tracking shots) feel a bit gimmicky to me. I'd probably forget all about this film again, if it wasn't for one magical scene That scene makes the entire film worth a watch on an emotional level. It's also rather satisfying on an intellectual level when you realize later on that Thanks for sharing, I'm curious how shocking I will find them. It seems to me that we have a consensus here that the film shouldn't work but does somehow. Curious really.

I watched the extended cut of The Patriot, starring Mel Gibson. I don't think the extended cut added much, but it also did not actively detract from the film or dilute the narrative drive. On that front, I would therefore count it as a success. As to the film as a whole, it's actually better than I remembered and that despite the fact that my expectations for it were quite high. I think, with perhaps the addition of the fact that the tactics in the final battle didn't seem to make much sense to me, the one glaring mistake the film makers made is its treatment of slavery. By today's standard, the film feels rather cowardly for avoiding to talk about it. IMDB has the following neat bit of trivia about the avoidance of any mention of slavery and I think Mel Gibson's statement at the end would probably have made for an even better film: Everything else in the film is great though. The cast is absolutely stacked with some of the best actors working at that time. This must have been one of Heath Ledger's first roles in the US and he has movie star written all over him in this film. It's really crazy how effortlessly he was able to hold his own against Mel Gibson. Isaacs is wonderful as the despicable Tavington and really deserves to be mentioned as one of the great villains of American cinema. In fact, one of the great things about The Patriot is the impact it had on Avatar: The Last Airbender. Again, citing a fact from IMDB below: I also love the score. It's incredibly stirring and I felt the desire to rush into the guns after Mel's character, so that's saying something. The costuming struck me as authentic and was apparently done in cooperation with the Smithsonian, so I think it was probably highly authentic. The battle scenes are thrilling, and while the tactics are sometimes a bit wonky (but hey, that's Hollywood for you), at least Emmerich delivers his violence in sufficiently thrilling instances to obfuscate the absence of sound tactical decisions. The final thing I really admire about the film is that it doesn't mind going to dark places. I cannot think of many films in recent memory where That's ballsy stuff for a movie with a budget this big and I frankly cannot think of any recent film that comes close. Perhaps Oppenheimer, but the framing is sufficiently different to make the two incomparable. Anyways, long story short, this is by far the best film Emmerich has ever done. It's a great period action piece and I wish we had more films like it. Both in terms of ambition, mature storytelling and moral ambivalence, as well as the time period. For some reason there are only a limited number of films that set their stories during this time but both this and The Last of the Mohicans break a lance for 18th Century North-America to be used on screen a lot more than it is used today. The great thing about Cassel (perhaps because he's French), is also the range of roles he has taken on over the years. He's played leads, villains, comic relief side characters, etc. Very interesting and I wish more big names would emulate him on that front. And you are right about that hunting outfit. Very beautifully done, although a lot of it struck me as anachronistic for the period (especially Monica Belluci's outfits). Very much like the Matrix indeed. That's the surprising thing for me. It's "objectively" quite shitty, but I still admire the chutzpah of it all enough to have really enjoyed it.

I rewatched the batshit crazy Le Pacte Des Loups (English title The Brotherhood of the Wolf). It's a French movie from 2001 and it really, really wants you to be able to identify it as a film from the late nineties, early nillies period. The film contains every single marker in the book for that time period of film making. There is some truly atrocious CGI, the camerawork is choppy and I would bet it was shot on an early digital camera which gives every image in the film a weird, over lighted and flat feel. The fight scenes are ridiculous, containing lots of unnecessary spinning, wildly impractical weapon designs, villains politely queuing to get their ass kicked, people forgetting that firearms are a thing, and sound effects worthy of Buster Keaton. It has a role for Monica Belluci. Its ideas on gender and race are questionable at best (unexplained Indian magic for example). Most ridiculous of all is the plot, which is so bonkers that I'll limit myself to just two errors that are especially egregious Despite the slapdash amateurism of the film, I did really enjoy myself. I'm not sure whether it's because I saw this film first at an impressionable age or because I just have a strange appreciation for films from this time period (I remember Beowulf starring Christopher Lambert very fondly as well) or because of some other mystical voodoo (I think Vincent Cassel is a great actor so his role might bias me a bit), but I enjoyed it more than the film itself merits on quality grounds.

I also think that his appreciation for

Watched the latest episode of City Primeval. I thought it was the best episode so far, but it is still not terribly engaging. Like I stated earlier, it misses a lot of the charm that made Jusitified so unique. The trickier part is where that lack of charm comes from. In part it is because of the Detroit setting, which is quite generic. Harlan County was a character in its own right and there is nothing here that ever gets to that level. You could easily swap Detroit for any other big U.S. city and it wouldn't fundamentally alter the show. it's more than that though. I think there are several characters that fundamentally do not work and the side characters miss the rustier charm that even the bit players in Justified somehow managed to deliver. The only characters who I think feel like genuine Justified to me are I'm on the fence when it comes to Mansell. I'm a big fan of Holbrook as an actor and I'm rooting for him to land meatier roles, so that might bias me a little. The character is a bit all over the place and it feels as if the writers do not really have a clear idea what they want that character to be (looney killer or criminal mastermind with a sadistic streak). In the latest episode, I really liked I also hope @hauberk and Mansell turns out to be a lot less superficial than he appeared to be at first glance, but I'm not holding my breath for it. But all in all he's definitely one of the less engaging opponents Raylan has gone up against. I hope the show will built on its success this episode to become even more engaging. Now that we are six episodes in, I think we can safely say that I don't even understand why she was included in the first place. She didn't add a thing to the storyline and only worked to establish Raylan as a bit of a douche given the ease with which he dumped her.

I had the opportunity to watch Brick yesterday. It's the debut feature of Rian Johnson, and I do seem to feel a morbid curiosity towards his films (even the bad ones like The Last Jedi or Knives Out are at least interesting failures). So, I therefore felt it was high time to finally cross Brick of my list. I mostly enjoyed it. It has a pretty good cast given that he Johnson was an absolute unknown director at the time. The best thing about the film by far is the dialogue. I have a particular love for the old Humphrey Bogart films and I think the film does a tremendous job in emulating the sort of dialogue that a classic Bogart character would utter. Oddly enough, despite the fact that it is billed as a neo-noir high-school film, I feel like it's a far better noir film than it's a high-school film. Perhaps it's because I come from a different system, but there was nothing that really struck a chord with what I imagine high-school to be or what I remember my version of it to be. Its biggest flaw however, is similar to what plagued Villeneuve's Prisoners: For the rest, I think it's a worthy effort for a first-time director with a limited budget. I think it was shot on a cheaper digital camera, because it is kind of displeasing to the eyes, but it makes up for that with some great cheapo effects. The best one was apparently accidental: All in all, it's not something you absolutely have to see, but it's a nice experiment.

Holy crap, I didn't know Ray Stevenson passed away. That's so sad I just love how this always happens when Ser Rodrigo starts to complain XD

I hate to agree with everyone on the Justified: City Primeval spin-off, but I just watched the fifth episode and have to concur. It's like old Justified, but without any of the charm that had. I hope it still picks up, but like @Nictarion up thread, I don't feel any rush to watch a new episode. If this wasn't slow season for TV, I probably also would not continue. Glad that I'm not the only one who found it somewhat undercooked. Still, a pretty good time altogether, but it could have been better.

Watched Prisoners (2013) by Dennis VIlleneuve for the first time. I have been meaning to get back to explore some of his older work for quite some time, after I saw three of his recent films in relatively short succession (Bladerunner 2049, Arrival and Dune part 1) and was suitably impressed. I had put off watching most of his work due to my intense dislike for Sicario, the rare dud in the man's work. Since his recent efforts have all been spectacular, I was curious to see how his other films stacked up and whether it's the sci-fi genre that sort of lured the talent out of VIlleneuve or whether he always had it and just missed with Sicario. Finally had the time to see Prisoners and I really liked it. It's not as good as his sci-fi efforts, but despite a sometimes shoddy script, it manages to have quite an impact. The performances are good; there are flashes of brilliance in the directing and cinematography and it all gets to a satisfying conclusion. To compare it with Nolan's output (and by this point, I think Villeneuve is the only current director working who shares the Nolan niche of critically successful crowd-pleasers) , I would say that this is a bit like Villeneuve's Insomnia. What knocks it down a peg or two is that most of the film is quite predictable, with the exception of one twist which for me relies a bit too much on cheating The one thing I do wonder about and which the internet doesn't give me a clear answer about is the following: It's amazing to me how incompetent they were for doing that. It soured my enjoyment of the film and I felt a bit cheated. If they had announced it upfront, I wouldn't have bat an eyelid. It's just baffling they did it this way, especially since the film has not clear conclusion. It really is a big film chopped in two, which makes it worse. If there was some form of resolution I think it might have gone down better but this was just cheap.

I went to see Oppenheimer in IMAX. I have never been as committed to the Nolan bandwagon as most of the internet, but I must admit that he's outdone himself. This just might be the best film of his entire career and a good apology for Tenet. The cast is unbelievable stacked, the effects are marvellous (this is what the IMAX format was made for) and the film just breezes through that muscular three hour runtime. Given the hype and the fact that I read that it was a mostly dialogue driven film, I went in with some hesitation. Nolan's dialogue is frequently poor (Gag Interstellar), so I feared what a dialogue driven film of his would look like, but he must have pilfered a lot from American Prometheus since it was a tremendous achievement. There were some questionable scenes though, where I believe Nolan played either loose or fast with the history or at the very least took the most sensationalist reading of it Generally speaking though, I would say please cinema, give me more of this.

I agree, I never got the hate for it either. It's a perfectly forgettable good times at the movies and it does nothing to seriously detract from your enjoyment of the originals. That's a high-bar to clear for most other properties in Disney SW. It's a bit too early since Andor is unfinished, but if it stays on the same level or improves further you'd be very comfortable in that claim I think.

Had an excellent time yesterday combining the first three episodes of Harley Quinn with They Cloned Tyrone. I maintain that Harley Quinn is one of the most underrated shows on TV at the moment. It deserves more attention than it gets and I hope it will get its Derry Girls moment sooner or later. Had a blast watching all three episodes in a row. Everyone was good, but I still have a special place in my heart for their Bane, he cracks me up every time. They Cloned Tyrone was a delightful surprise. I'm not sure how Netflix manages to make so much shit and then occasionally they manage to release something that is worth watching. It took me back to Boyega's Attack the Block days when I thought he was going to be a leading man and was sure that any sci-fi property he was involved with would have to be good (one of the many gentle notions Disney SW destroyed). The leading triumvirate were all excellent. I see a lot of (justified) praise for Teyonah Parris, but I thought Boyega as the taciturn leading man and Jamie Foxx as comic relief were equally delightful. The concept behind it is somewhat kooky, but they play it with so much paranoid gusto that it just works.

He was great in Logan. Mangold directed that one and therefore wanted to work with him again for Dial of Destiny. I think the rest just saw him being a great villain in Logan and Sandman and therefore started to typecast him.

I don't think I really want to see Boyd C. again.

I watched the first three episodes of City Primeval (thanks to the board for reminding me that this was a thing). So far I like it, but for some reason I have a hard time connecting it to Justified. It's partly the location, the visible aging of Timothy Olyphant and the absence of most of the other recurring character from Justified s I suppose, but I find the way that it is shot also strange. It feels very digital and different, but I might be completely off. That being said, still binged all three episodes. Boyd Holbrook is always entertaining and is quickly moving up in the food chain it seems. I know Adelaide Clemens mostly from her role in Parade's End, so the contrast here is pretty large. Curious to see where it ends up. Oh, another stealth drop Guess I know what to do next The crowd size and the fact that it was clearly made off people who don't visit the theatre very often. Plus, the fact that I didn't hear many laughs or comments when the mentioned scenes played out in comparison to other scenes.