Showing posts with label LOTR. Show all posts
Showing posts with label LOTR. Show all posts

Tuesday, December 25, 2012

Movie review: "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey"

This weekend I went to watch "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" with my girlfriend. I must say that I missed all the hype about this movie. I was almost unaware of it until it was out, and even then didn't paid more attention to it. On the other hand, in some ways I considered it as given that I will go to watch it. But in this way I was very pleasantly surprised.


For those few who don't know anything about the movie, "The Hobbit" trilogy ("The Unexpected Journey", "The Desolation of Smaug", and "There and Back Again") tells a story before "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy. Bilbo Baggins is a young hobbit, living a peaceful and prosperous life. So prosperous that he becomes stale and priggish for his years (60, the middle years for a hobbit). Suddenly his everyday life gets abruptly interrupted by wizard Gandalf and 13 uncouth dwarves. The dwarves are set on journey to free their homeland (the Lonely Mountain) from dragon Smaug, who took it over from them some long years ago. They are in a need of a professional burglar, and Gandalf has chosen Bilbo, who is far away from being burglar as is possible to be. After some convincing and some songs, Bilbo is convinced and their start their journey, where they are awaited by many adventures...

This last sentence sums this movie pretty well. Contrary to LotR trilogy, which was a big epic fantasy, "The Hobbit" is an obvious light adventure fantasy. There is a big goal in future (killing a dragon), but we don't even see the dragon in this movie. Instead, our heroes go on a journey, find some clues and build up for larger adventures. It is really a classical fantasy, which I don't mean in any diminutive way, because I really enjoyed the movie. There is also some history in it (of the Tolkien's imaginary world Middle-earth) and some explanations that help to put this movie in context of LotR. At the same time, they give it hidden epic proportions, if you are familiar to LotR.

For the hard-core fans of the books, "The Hobbit" will be a thrill. I haven't read the book in some time (ten years or more), but I have read it a lot of times before, and I think that it follows the book surprisingly truthfully. I can list only two real changes from the books: Azog and Radagast. And even these are based on the book and fit in the spirit of the movie. All other changes are minor, like the meeting of the White Council (which happened off-screen in the book), or history tales (that are actually part of the LotR appendix). But considering all, "The Hobbit" follows its literary counterpart more truthfully than it was the case with the LotR. At least for this first movie; we will see when next two come out...

There is one thing that will maybe bother some viewers, especially the stiff ones: Radagast the Brown. And his rabbits. It is obviously put here for the kids. But I found it quite funny actually, and I think that it was fitting for this kind of movie. If someone tried to put something like this in LotR trilogy, it wouldn't fit so well (even though that LotR books have Tom Bombadil), but here it felt almost natural.

I haven't watched many 3D movies (I tend to avoid them), but "The Hobbit" was the first movie to impress me. Few times I actually flinched. I was also impressed how they made stone-giants and goblins, even better that I imagined them. Production of the movie was really on high level.

In the end, "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" was a great movie, both for fans and non-fans. It is thrilling, funny and interesting through all two and a half hour of movie. I can't wait for the next two movies ("The Desolation of Smaug" and "There and Back Again") to come out.

Sunday, September 2, 2012

Epic fantasy series list: What is out there - part 1

I have been thinking about this post for some time now, but somehow I would always fail to find time to finish it. But since I am on vacation now and have some spare time, I decided to give it a go: a list of epic fantasy series I know something about.

First I want to make a clarification. Wikipedia defines epic or high fantasy like this. Also, there is a list of high fantasy novels here. I agree with these definitions and lists in most points, but disagree in some. For example, I would never characterize Discworld series or R. A. Salvatore's Drizzt Do'Urden (which is now missing from the list, but I was there before) or any other Forgotten Realms books as such. I really love some of these books, but they are not epic. They miss that sense of drama and end-of-the-word feeling. I would make distinction between epic and high fantasy - high fantasy is just fantasy that is complex, held strictly to magical systems, depicts setting and characters in realistic and believable manner.

Anyway, even though this post it titled "Epic fantasy series", I don't intend to hold strictly to any conditions and definitions. This is just a list of books and series I would recommend to someone who would ask for some good epic fantasy series. Some of them I have read whole, some just few books, and some I just heard of or read about. But I hope this list will help some fan deciding what to read next.

First mention must be dedicated to "The Lord of the Rings" by J. R. R. Tolkien. Maybe people will disagree with me, but I think that you can't be an epic fantasy fan if you haven't read and don't at least respect LotR. I can understand claims that there are better new series, that you like some other writers more, that it has flaws, but it this defining work of epic fantasy doesn't tickle you enjoyment glands, that you are not a fan! Tolkien wasn't the first; he didn't invent elves, orcs and dwarves; but he did what Microsoft did to PCs during 90s - made them popular and available to the common people. I don't think I need to describe what "The Lord of the Rings" is about - if you already don't know, than you have lived in a cave for past 10 years and you will not read this blog in any case. But it is sufficient to say that if you like any number of books from this list, and haven't already read LotR, then do it - you will not regret. You will find here the epic struggle between noble heroes against ugly and dark adversaries; noble elves, sturdy dwarves and feral orcs; magical rings, wise wizards and buried monsters; tragedy, love and epic battles... When I think about it, I haven't read it for almost ten years - maybe it's a time for a new reread.


Now we can continue with the "big three" - my three personal favorites.

"A Song of Ice and Fire" by George R. R. Martin is mentioned first simply because I have read it first of the three. And I read it first simply because it was one of few modern fantasy series translated to the Croatian. This can be your first clue, a simple economic law - only the most popular work get translated to such a number of languages that it include Croatian. aSoIaF is in a way the new tLotR - not in contents, but in its popularity, first between hard-core fans, and now with even non-readers - by mega-popular HBO TV show "Game of Thrones". In contents, aSoIaF and tLotR could not be more different. "A Song of Ice and Fire" features more politics than magic; characters and society real enough that they sound like they are from some history book; intrigue, political machinations and sex. But there is a more profound difference: the grey morality. As you continue toward third and further books, you will realize that there are no characters that are good or evil: they are just people, some weak, some strong, some sick, they try to their best in a world not really benevolent to them. Other differences include grittiness, recognizing the fact that people have bodily functions (like going to toilet or having sexual urges), equal importance of men and women (but acknowledging their different roles in medieval-like society). On the other hand, Martin is not always easy to his characters or reader. Main characters will die never to return; characters that you like and cheer for will be put to unexpected levels of hardship; characters you believed weak and evil will later be portrayed with sympathy and recognition. The last book so far, "A Dance with Dragons", really surprised me with amount of explicit violence and unexpected turns of the plot. But if you like big books (big by volume, complexity and content), this is one of the books for you. There are five books published, and two more announced, although it is possible (in my opinion) that there will be a few more.

"The Wheel of Time" by Robert Jordan is a series that for the long time I would pinpoint as the one that I liked the most. Not the best one, but most likable. It is a first series that I have read when I started buying book from Amazon and reading on English, so I presume I will always have some special connection to it. WoT is a shift from aSoIaF to LotR again: a somewhat classical epic story about clash between Light and Dark, in a fantasy world with kingdoms, Princes and Princesses, magic and sorceresses, whose main cast is young people unaware of their great destiny (shepherd becoming the King and the Savior); lots of romance and romantic notions. I liked it because it has tons of characters and millions of little details that almost in no way contradict each other and make a very complex setting and history. There is a lot of magic which plays a large role in the setting (contrary to the aSoIaF where magic is almost nonexistent, especially in first few books), and the magic system is also very complex. Characters are very likable, especially the main few dozen (jokingly), and funny. Much of this humor is based on male-female differences and "differences" and Jordan was fond of making strange social relationship between them. Readers objected this series' tectonic pace and a large number of plots and subplots - I on the other hand, like this series specifically for these reasons. These objections are now partly nullified since most of the book are now out (last book is coming out this winter), so a new reader doesn't have to wait several year for next book only to find out that his favorite characters is not even in it. Another important this is that unfortunately Robert Jordan passed away from illness before writing what was supposed to be that last, twelfth book. But he left a mountain of notes, so his widows selected another writer, Brandon Sanderson, to finish the series. He split this last book in three, and successfully finished two of them, while the last one ("A Memory of Light") will be coming out next year. I would recommend this series to everybody who likes their epic fantasy Tolkienesque and romantic, especially to teenager fans.

"Malazan Book of the Fallen" by Steven Erikson is a series that I would probably pick as my current favorite, if I was forced to. This is probably the most ambitious and audacious fantasy series I have read so far (SF has galaxy-spanning series that I would say sound more ambitious, but that is SF). This series was finished this year and has in total 10 books. But there are additions in form of books by Ian C. Esslemont who writes side-stories in this setting (they created this setting together; by the way, don't read Esslemont until you become a fan of MBotF, he's not as good as Erikson), some smaller humorous side-stories written by Erikson, and a new prequel trilogy call "Kharkanas Trilogy" by Erikson himself (which is easily as good as original MBotF). This series is great in all points: setting, story, characters and writing. The setting spans hundreds of thousands of years in past of the series' present, it has several large continents and numerous magical "warrens" (I am in lack of single-word description for warren). Erikson is a professional archaeologist and anthropologist, and this is strongly felt in his books: while other writers have races and nations, he has cultures! But the most impressive thing about this setting is that, in 10 and more books Erikson painted and implied only the borders of its portions, and filled marvelously only some of them. If he was willing, I believe that he could write at least two dozens more of books in this setting, revealing only what he suggested in his first books (something like Esslemont has been doing). Story is brilliant and complex; so complex that even though I have read most of the books several times, I can't explain what and why really happened in full extent - you just have to read it for yourself. There is action, war, epic battles, personal duels, mystery, intrigue, history, politics - you just name it and there it is. And characters... Well, there are a lot of them: I think there are certainly at least a hundred with POV and several hundred named characters. Erikons is fond of giving to even unimportant and unnamed characters unique and believable personality; he is also fond of random villagers revealing the truths of life. And his main characters (all hundred or so) are simply brilliant: some are artist and philosophers; others are lowly and gritty soldiers, while some are wild and "stupid" barbarians. But they are complex and life-like - Erikson is at same level with Martin when it comes to "grey characters" (hello Kallor) and I don't think I can name a single evil characters in this series. Be careful, for Erikson will make you fill pity for even the scariest and brutal sociopath. While I consider his writing one of his best points, it will put off a lots of readers, especially if the endure till later books. Erikons is a great philosopher and his characters will spend several pages thinking about themselves and world, asking fundamental questions of both, but not moving plot a single pace. He will make you wonder about life and death, why some people suffer and what is the nature of death, loyalty, passion... This series is quite gritty and violent - one of the recurring themes is that "children die". This is especially true for later books, when Erikson will make some of his characters go through unimaginable stresses and tortures. On the other hand, his books are extremely humorous and he has written some of the funniest characters I ever met (yes, Pust, I am talking about you). Although I spent last 3000 characters praising Erikson, his books are not for all. If you expect some light fantasy to relax you for couple of hours, these are not for you. Erikson asks for your attention, you will probably be forced to read the series at least twice, and it will often make you question yourself and your philosophy. But if you like this stuff, think yourself a power-fan of epic fantasy, or think that R. Scott Bakker is OK, please try "Malazan Book of the Fallen".


I first planned for this to be a single post, but now I see that it has grown even though I just started. So, a change of plans: I will be splitting it in several posts.


Monday, July 23, 2012

Book review: "The Sword of Shannara" by Terry Brooks

When I started buying books from Amazon (also, kudos for this), I checked Wikipedia and other resources for examples of epic fantasy, especially for longer series. In such way I found about "The Wheel of Time" by Robert Jordan, "Malazan Book of the Fallen" by Steven Erikson, "Belgariad/Malloreon" by David Eddings, "The Rifttwar Saga" by Raymond E. Feist... There are many series, most of which I haven't still read, although for the most I have plan to read them eventually. Since I was self-restricted on one book per month, I had much spare time, so I would usually read detailed synopsis, sometimes even for the whole series. One of these was the whole "Shannara" series by Terry Brooks. This was one series that I didn't really like from what I read about it - it all smelled me too much of sucking money from the fans (something like Feist). Repetitive stories, jumping back in time, mixing it with urban fantasy... But the first few books sounded OK, and I found it mentioned a lot on blogs I follow, so when an e-book containing first three books of the series (the original "Shannara Trilogy") become available (for fair price, even) I decided to buy it. Even if it was bad, it would be an education experience - reading on of the classics of fantasy. This is my review of the first book, "The Sword of Shannara".




Since this is one of classics and it was written in seventies, the usual fantasy plot was somewhat expected. Two brothers, Shea and Flick, are living peaceful lives in Shady Vale. This is all interrupted when they are visited by Allanon, who they know only as wandering mystic, historian and philosopher. Allanon explains Shea, who was adopted in Ohmsford family, that he is a direct and only living descendant of ancient Elven King Jerle Shannara, and us such he is the only person in whole world capable of wielding his heritage, the Sword of Shannara. This is necessary because an old enemy of mankind, the Warlock Lord, is again on rise and is threatening to destroy all civilization. So Shae must journey to Paranor, old Druid Keep, to find the Sword and defeat the Warlock Lord. On his journey he is joined by his brother Flick, their friend Menion, and later by Balinor (Prince of old Human Kindgdom of Callahorn, dedicated to guarding the Human frontier), Handel (a Dwarf), and Durin and Dayel (two Elven nobles). And of course, Allanon, who is in fact the last Druid. On their journey they are opposed by Skull Bearers (black winged minions of Warlock Lord), Gnomes and Trolls.


If this reminds you to "The Lord of the Rings", this is because "Sword of Shannara" is pretty much blatant (and worse) copy of it. There is an escape from remote and peaceful valley without guidance, scary black pursuers with blood-freezing screams, a party composed of all free races... There is even a tentacle-monster living in a lake and a journey under a mountain. I know that many fantasy series found their inspiration in LotR (some would say even my beloved WoT), but not in this way and not this much. Later in the book things start moving off from Tolkien and start sounding original and interesting, but damage was already done at this point.


One good thing that Brooks does is in making a setting with interesting history, one that is connected to our present one. The bad side of it is that it is revealed in a big and obvious info-dump on the very beginning. It would be much more convincing if he had found some gradual way to reveal it. Also, there is very little sense of novelty in this book. Our heroes visit the villages of Dwarves and Gnomes, but we found almost nothing about them - like they are not different and they visit them every day. In fact, everything I know about the Gnomes in this book is that they are "yellowish" and "smaller than man" - almost nothing about their physical look, society, intelligence, habits... Similar for other races.


I usually refrain from second-guessing the characters, because this is the death of books (you know, why just they didn't kill Sauron or destroyed the Ring and saved themselves from troubles), but this book has so many problems that I just couldn't stop myself. Most of it sounds unconvincing and inconsistent. Shae founds out a complete reversal of everything he knew and believed, immediately accepts it and calmly proceeds with planning what next he will do. Handel is taciturn, moody, cheerful, grizzled, scared of basements (a racial trait of Dwarves!!!), brave, masterful tactician... I know people are complex, but not this much. All enemies are stupid, clumsy, gullible and incompetent - while our heroes are lucky, smart and dexterous. 


Then there are problems with Brook's writing. First, enemies are totally indistinctive - there is only two named enemies, one of the being the main big bad. Constant in-paragraph changes of POV are slightly irritating, especially at first. I couldn't make a mental picture of any characters - I couldn't even determine the age of Shae and Flick (somewhere between 16 and 36). Using contemporary expressions like "robotlike appearance" and "Spartanlike barracks" didn't help. My favorite was description of Hendel stalking on his "catlike feet" - a Dwarf with a "catlike feet"!!!


Tolkien received some objections for lack of strong female characters, but here there is absolutely no female characters in first half of book (except two (two!) mentions of Hendel's absent wife and Dayel's absent fiancée each). No one has wife, mother or daughter - especially not Gnomes, Trolls or Dwarves (there was some vague impression that Humans live in families, so I presume they include women). And when that one female character appear (her name is Shirl Ravenlock and she is a redhead Princess - I didn't know ravens are red) her only purpose is to be an object of love and something to protect for one of main characters. She actually says that her only wish is to support him (from away, I presume).


In conclusion, "The Sword of Shannara" is a terrible book, worse even than those by Terry Goodkind (if there wasn't Terry Pratchet, I would say that the name Terry was cursed). You know that feeling when you are read a good book and you just can't leave it without reading another page/paragraph/sentence. Well, I didn't felt in once while reading this book. What's worse, I am now stuck with reading the whole trilogy.

Saturday, November 5, 2011

Comment: "The Lord of the Rings" movie trilogy

For the last several weeks I re-watched "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy with my girlfriend. We have been both busy, so we couldn't connect enough time to watch whole episode in one sitting (and these movies ARE long), so the whole thing dragged for some time. Because of this I won't make a usual review, but will just write some comments.

First, I really like LOTR. I have read those books over dozen times: while I was a member of library, I used to read them one a year at least. I read and liked "The Hobbit", "The Silmarillion", etc. I also watched the movies at least four times completely and lots of times in fragments (when they were played on TV). My firm opinion is that a person cannot be a serious epic-fantasy fan without liking Tolkien. Sure, there are better books, longer, more complex, more realistic, etc. Sure, Tolkien had flaws, like with female characters or black-and-white morality. Nevertheless, "The Lord of the Rings" is still one of best things epic fantasy can offer: rich and complex setting, numerous and detailed characters, excellent writing, and what is most important, feel of epic that can be used to describe and define this whole genre.

After all this said, I have to admit that I didn't like the movies this time. I don't know is that because of my growing up (last time I read these books I was in second or third year of colleague, some 5-6 years ago; now I have a job and steady relationship, although reading is still one of my priorities) or because all those excellent books I read in the meantime. Except LOTR, library had first four volumes of ASoIaF, "Memory, Sorrow, and Thorn" trilogy and first two R. Scott Bakker's volumes to show from epic fantasy genre (there were tons of low-fantasy books, like different Forgotten Realms series) and since then I have read a lot of best-selling epic fantasy series (WoT, Feist, Eddings, Erikson...). Nevertheless, I still have fond memories of LOTR and I don't think I would find the books less valuable now. But this time I couldn't enjoy in good sides of the movies; instead I was constantly nagged by flaws.

I know that they couldn't fit the whole book in this short time and that some compromises had to be made. It is normal to dismiss details of settings and less important characters and I think that right choices were done in this department. What I seriously dislike are the simplifications and alterations that were made to draw a wider audience (what they call a Hollywoodization).

First movie is very decently done and I don't think I have anything to complain here. There is one of my favorite scenes ("You shall not pass!"), which was done superbly. They dropped many things from introductory parts (run from Shire, Tom Bombadil), but that understandable and it's more important the movie kept the feeling of the book (except the wizard fight). Second movie is more questionable. I really liked how they captured the anger of the Ents, but lots of things get mauled. They concentrated on the battle of Helm's Deep, which is far from the central point of book; also, fight was overly-dramatized. Saruman is second big complaint: he is shown as evil characters, corrupted and weak; while he is all this, he is far more complex. Third movie was the worst. There were too many changes and I didn't like any scene with Aragorn. They made the same mistake with Denethor as with Saruman. The siege of Minas Tirith looks to easy... List of complaints is long.

I was always proud to talk with non-reader about LOTR books, how complex and good they are. With movies, this wasn't the case; I often felt obligated to defend the books because of someone's bad opinion of movies. I will be watching "Game of Thrones" soon, so I did they do an excellent job with it, or just decent.