I recently went on a short holiday to the Isle of Man (specifically, Ramsey), and I decide to travel using public transport. The journey involved a bus from Minehead to Taunton, a train from Taunton to Lancaster, another train from Lancaster to Heysham, a ferry from Heysham to Douglas and finally a bus from Douglas to Ramsey. The entire journey takes around 13 hours. Now, I don't really mind that journey time, as I am used to it and I just spend the time reading, watching movies and playing games on my laptop, but when you take into consideration that for the same price I can get a flight from Bristol to somewhere in the south of Spain in a third of the time I feel that I'm being let down a bit.
Now, true I could get a flight from Bristol or Exeter to the island, which would take just under an hour, plus a couple of hours on a bus or 2, but then the price goes up from £105 return to £340 return including the buses and trains to get me to the train station and from the airport to Ramsey. Is there any real reason why the cost is so high? It isn't like they run the planes empty or anything, they are nearly always full.
However, as I have already said, I do use the time to some advantage - this time I caught up on some reading.
For the journey I usually pack a couple of books, else I end up finishing one and spending too much money on train food and this time was no different. My first read was a brilliant novel by the contemporary author Nick Hornby, entitled 'A Long Way Down'. This novel is simply superb, drawing you in to the sad, painful and eventually happy (well, happier) world of a group of suicidal Londoners. Not many books have made me feel happy, sad and also made me laugh and cry, but this one did. If you haven't already read it, you should go out and buy it (and all Nick Hornby's other books too, as they are all similarly excellent).
The other book I took was one I have read time and time again, and never gets old. It was the Red Dwarf Omnibus. Humorous and dark, it keeps you reading for hours, regardless of how many times you have read it before. Perfect for a long journey too, as it is 2 books in one and people don't think you are weird for reading it.
Well, that was a random post, but the main point is that if you don't have those books in your library, get them!
Thursday, 30 August 2007
Monday, 27 August 2007
Bourne Free? or should that be Bourne again?
So, after having watched the concluding part of the Bourne Trilogy, I feel I am finally in a position to comment on it. So here it is:
When viewing most trilogies, I usually feel disappointed by the third installment. They always start out so strong, so full of life, action, ingenious new techniques and really suck you in, but slowly but surely the plot becomes boring, the 'new ' techniques become old hat and I end up feeling like they should have just stuck with one movie. An example of such a trilogy would be The Matrix or even The Fast and The Furious. The first of both are excellent and good (in that order, as I can honestly say that TF&TF was ok), but then you watch as the action becomes over the top in order to cover poor acting, poor scripting and too much emphasis on big effects.
However, when watching the Bourne trilogy, you don't get any of that. The storyline remains entrancing, the acting remains top notch and the directing gets the most out of each scene.
The storyline is based around Jason Bourne, an ex-CIA black-ops assassin who is suffering from amnesia following a botched operation. The story follow his struggle to regain his past. This monumental task is strewn with gun fights, explosions, car chases, love and loss.
I won't go into detail on the storyline of the movie, as you can simply go and watch it, but I will say that even if you don't normally go to the cinema, you should go and see this. The crystal clear sound effects, realistic special effects and adrenaline rush creating hand to hand combat should definitely be experienced on a big screen, with big speakers.
My only criticism of the entire trilogy is the overuse of contemporary camerashots more commonly seen in low budget Sky One feature length mini-series'. I would say this to any director or director of photography - steadicam was invented for a reason, as were dollies and tripods. Camera shake can be used effectively (just look at any good metal or rock music video) but using it in 80% of your scenes can be a bit much.
So, to conclude; America got this one right. I might even go so far as to say that I would look forward to more in the series, if the quality can be maintained.
When viewing most trilogies, I usually feel disappointed by the third installment. They always start out so strong, so full of life, action, ingenious new techniques and really suck you in, but slowly but surely the plot becomes boring, the 'new ' techniques become old hat and I end up feeling like they should have just stuck with one movie. An example of such a trilogy would be The Matrix or even The Fast and The Furious. The first of both are excellent and good (in that order, as I can honestly say that TF&TF was ok), but then you watch as the action becomes over the top in order to cover poor acting, poor scripting and too much emphasis on big effects.
However, when watching the Bourne trilogy, you don't get any of that. The storyline remains entrancing, the acting remains top notch and the directing gets the most out of each scene.
The storyline is based around Jason Bourne, an ex-CIA black-ops assassin who is suffering from amnesia following a botched operation. The story follow his struggle to regain his past. This monumental task is strewn with gun fights, explosions, car chases, love and loss.
I won't go into detail on the storyline of the movie, as you can simply go and watch it, but I will say that even if you don't normally go to the cinema, you should go and see this. The crystal clear sound effects, realistic special effects and adrenaline rush creating hand to hand combat should definitely be experienced on a big screen, with big speakers.
My only criticism of the entire trilogy is the overuse of contemporary camerashots more commonly seen in low budget Sky One feature length mini-series'. I would say this to any director or director of photography - steadicam was invented for a reason, as were dollies and tripods. Camera shake can be used effectively (just look at any good metal or rock music video) but using it in 80% of your scenes can be a bit much.
So, to conclude; America got this one right. I might even go so far as to say that I would look forward to more in the series, if the quality can be maintained.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)