Matthew's Journal

This is a sequel to 2019's Black Panther, and has to deal with the unexpected death of Chadwick Boseman, who played T'Challa / Black Panther in that film. Rather than recast the role, instead Wakanda Forever opens with people grieving T'Challa's death, and other countries sensing weakness in Wakanda and trying to exploit this to get hold of vibranium. The way that Ramonda (suddenly made queen) and Shona (who couldn't cure her brother's terminal illness) respond to their grief makes a significant difference to the plot.

As well as grief, there's a heavy theme of colonialism and its long-lasting impact here, and I think it's good that we largely see it from the point of view of the (formerly-)colonised peoples.

All of which means there is some emotional and thematic weight to go with some pretty good action set pieces. The weakness, though, relates to the plot around the Talokan civilisation( spoilers )Overall, then, a bit of a mixed bag.

This is the last of the films off this year's Hugo Award shortlist. There is a very complex time-travel plot here, which I think doesn't in fact stand up at all, but there are a series of delightful (and delightfully silly) action sequences (a number of which we see twice) which try and keep you from thinking too hard about the plot. It's trying very hard to do a bunch of clever stuff, but doesn't stick the landing. Also, some of the dialogue is a bit hard to make out, which is an error in a film that is already pretty confusing! ( Some spoilers )

The penultimate short-listed film for the Hugo Award this year, Soul is a Pixar film about Joe Gardner, a jazz pianist and teacher; and 22, a soul who is stuck in the Great Before. It's a beautifully-animated film with a great soundtrack and some very funny moments (and far too much cringe for my liking!). But I found the plot rang hollow (and its ontology(?) was very strange), and it dragged surprisingly for a relatively-short film. ( More review, with spoilers )

We've watched a couple of films that weren't on the Hugo shortlist!

First was Freaks (the 2018 Scifi, not the 1932 horror); Chloe lives with her father, who insists on covering all the windows and never letting her leave the house. He teaches her to pretend to be normal (e.g. to have opinions on baseball, a sport she's never seen), and tells her that the bad men will try and kill her if she ever goes outside. I can't say much more about the plot without going into spoilers, but one of the things I liked about this film was that you spend quite a long time wondering what is going on - is the father paranoid, bad, or is there actually danger outside? Why all this talk of normals?

All becomes clearer as the film goes on, but the plot has plenty of twists, and the characters are all pretty believable, underpinned by some really good acting. Recommended.

The other was The Vast of Night, which is a Scifi mystery set in 1950's New Mexico. It's a curious piece - there's some distancing framing (as an episode of "Paradox Theatre Hour"), there are precious few close-ups, and the genre nods are liberally scattered (the radio station is WOTW, for example); and it's definitely a slow-burner despite only being 90 minutes long.

I rather liked it; there are some great moments (oddly, I found the hyper-efficient switchboard operator fascinating), and it's very well placed in its setting without becoming historical fiction. It's an atmosphere piece more than anything else, I think, and it builds that atmosphere very effectively.

Another Hugo shortlist entry. I wasn't really expecting to enjoy this, as romcoms are very much Not My Thing, but I actually thought it was pretty good (and had plenty of laugh-out-loud moments).

The premise is a wedding day that is an infinite time-loop for a few of the characters - one of whom has been looping for ages, another of whom gets stuck in the loop at the start of the film; so we learn about what's going on as they do. Despite Groundhog Day not being explicitly mentioned ever, this is a plot device that's been used before, but I liked the fun (and near-absence of cringe comedy) and humour of this, as well as the hints of darkness (there's a nihilism under the surface that is never lingered on) that made the characters much more sympathetic.

At 90 minutes, it doesn't outstay its welcome, either.

Third of the Hugo shortlist, and the best so far by a comfortable margin. The premise here is a small band of almost-immortal mercenaries; what they do with their time, what it's like being a new (and very old) immortal, and what happens when someone thinks they might be useful to Big Pharma...

This was more interesting and less just-endless-fight-scenes than I was expecting (though the fight scenes are very well done!), although it was still a fairly predictable plot (while Obbxre tvivat Naql na rzcgl tha was a twist we didn't spot coming, we both said "Zreevpx'f fgvyy va gur cragubhfr" when gur yvsg jnf frra tbvat qbja). Some of the character motivations around key plot points felt a bit flat, though. I'm not sure the plot as a whole entirely stands up to scrutiny, either...

I did like that all the characters are pretty competent (including the villains), and that most of them (the exception being Merrick) have complex motivations. I like that there's a central queer relationship that isn't just one aspect of the relevant characters. And the fight scenes are very well done :)

atreic and I thought it might be fun to watch the Hugh short-listed films this year. I'm beginning to think this may have been a bad idea...

We figured alphabetical order is as good as any, so started with Birds of Prey. This is a DC Comics film about Harley Quinn, and the events that spiral from her break-up with The Joker. It has a similar sassy fourth-wall breaking energy to Deadpool, but is nothing like as funny; and while I enjoyed the chaotic roller-coaster series of events, I didn't find myself caring very much about the plot. Also, I'm not sure this is really SF/Fantasy - it has the same sort of cartoon physics/violence of a James Bond movie, but beyond one appearance of Oynpx Pnanel'f pnanel pel novyvgl there is essentially no paranormal activity here. Entertaining enough, but nothing to get excited about.

Rom-coms are not really my thing, and I can't abide cringe comedy. But I do enjoy Eurovision. I absolutely hated Eurovision Song Contest: The Story of Fire Saga, though. ( you may not want a paragraph of me ranting about how terrible this film was; probably contains spoilers ) Dreadful, dreadful film. In slightly-redeeming features, Graham Norton as himself is quite amusing (though rather phoning it in), and Husavik is not a bad Eurovision-style number.

Anyhow, so far I still think that Possessor (which, alas, didn't make it onto the ballot) is miles ahead...

Intrigued by a pair of enthusiastic reviews in the Graun, I watched this online. It's an eerie near-future scifi horror, where the protagonist (Tasya Vos) is someone who is projected into the mind of other people to take over their bodies to perform assassinations. The work is not without its risks, though, and Vos is somewhat estranged from her family and also starting to perform erratically at her job.

So much of what is going on is either seeing Voss' estrangement from herself and her family or seeing how the people she takes over behaving just a little off-kilter because they are quite literally not themselves. And of course the consciousness of one of the targets starts fighting back...

Also of note is the firm which has staff spying on people through their laptop cameras in order to evaluate their home decor(!) and lifestyle, implicitly so they can be more effectively targeted by advertising.

This is a tense and claustrophobic film, with a not inconsiderable quantity of gory violence, and I'm not sure the plot quite stands up to scrutiny in a couple of places (jvgu fb zhpu grpu, fheryl gurl fubhyq xabj jurer Ibff'f gnetrg vf ng nyy gvzrf?), but it's a pretty effective piece of cinema; I should try and remember to nominate it for the Hugos next year...

Inspired by recommendations on disobey_gravity, I went to see Free Solo[0], which is about Alex Honnold's free solo ascent of El Capitan in June 2017. The climb itself was big news at the time, at least among climbers - climbing over 3000ft of steep granite with some technically hard parts, with no protection is an amazing achievement. And also very dangerous. There's a section in the middle where the film remembers a whole series of notable free solo climbers, all of whom have died while climbing.

It's not just a film about the climb, though - there's quite a bit exploring the character of Alex, how and why he does what he does, and so on. We hear from a number of Alex's climbing partners as well as his girlfriend Sanni. I have to admit, I ended up with the impression of someone who is a brilliant and fearless climbing but a rather inadequate human being. He's so focused on his climbs that he often seems blind to his impact on other people. During filming, they learn that Ueli Steck has died free soloing on Nuptse. Sanni relates how when she was talking to Alex about this and wondering how Steck's wife Nicole must feel, he remarked "Oh, she must have known it was coming". He seems unable to grasp the idea that if he dies soloing it will have a significant impact on other people.

Another interesting issue explored by the film is the ethics of filming someone free soloing: does filming Alex make him take risks he wouldn't otherwise take? How would the crew feel if they filmed their friend falling to his death? At a number of points it's clear that the crew (all of whom are professional climbers) find watching Alex solo really pretty stressful.

The final ascent was pretty tense to watch, even knowing that he's going to succeed. While Alex looks so assured on the route, some of the moves he does are ones that would look pretty hairy on lead, never mind soloing 2000ft off the ground!

Free Solo is by turns fascinating, infuriating, funny, sad, and impressive. And it's gorgeously filmed.

[0] a note on terminology. Free climbing is climbing without "aid", i.e. you only pull on the rock; ropes gear and suchlike are just for safety. Free solo climbing is like that but you do it by yourself without a rope i.e. there is nothing to protect you if you fall.

We went to see Bohemian Rhapsody today. I cried; quite a lot (this doesn't tell you much, I cry at films all the time). It's a great ride, but I think also a very one-sided view of Freddie's life - most of the characters are pretty one-dimensional, and it does drift towards the idea that if he'd not been quite so queer, everything would have turned out alright (and argh, the bisexual erasure). And it takes a huge number of liberties with the history of Freddie and Queen - for example, it's just not true that there was a vast gap where they didn't play together until reforming for Live Aid (they toured in April and May 1985, and Live Aid was in July of that year). Which, OK, they want to tell a story, and Live Aid was a triumph for Queen, but it was more a shot in the arm that propelled them onto other things.

Freddie was a complex man with a complex life, and I don't feel this film tells that story. But still, Rami Malek is superb as the man himself, and the film is great musically and has some very funny moments as well as some touching ones. And while recreating so much of that classic Live Aid set is ever so self-indulgent, somehow I didn't mind.

We need a film of Freddie Mercury's life, and this is not it. But it's still a blast.