I've consumed two things from the 2025 Hugo Award shortlist recently. They're Quite Different.

The first was The Tainted Cup, by Robert Jackson Bennett. I loved this; it's a crime thriller set in a fantasy world, where The Empire exists to keep its people safe from Leviathans. It has a lot of what you'd expect from the crime genre; whilst a couple of times that meant that I spotted the plot twist or reveal coming, there was still plenty here to keep me guessing (and turning the pages). It also talks about power and money (and how those with both can often keep clear of the law), and perhaps something about how we treat those who aren't the same as ourselves. There are some quite gruesome bits. I have a suspicion that there may be a sequel or two, which I look forward to reading :)

Flow is an animated film without any dialogue. After some apocalypse that has removed all of humanity, a flood comes, and a little cat (our point-of-view character) is nearly swept away. Over time it meets and befriends some other animals, and they have adventures together. This is not a plot-driven film, and I think works better if thought of as a poem in cinematic form. There are moments of very authentical animal behaviour, and also some rather less plausible ones (like animals being able to operate a tiller). I would have liked to have seen this on a big screen, I think.

Wandering Earth II is on the Hugo shortlist this year. We'd not seen Wandering Earth, so decided to watch that first. Whilst this was probably necessary to get a chunk of what goes on in Wandering Earth II (which is in fact a prequel), I think it did cause us to start Wandering Earth II expecting the worst.

I didn't think much of Wandering Earth - it was visually very impressive, and tugged at the heart-strings, but key aspects of the plot just didn't make sense and were too implausible even for sci-fi.

Without getting into spoilers, the same can be said of the prequel; too much of the plot was based on engineering/science so bad as to disengage my suspension of disbelief. Again, it's visually stunning, and the emotional set-pieces hit home, but the plot just didn't work for me. I found the device of announcing "[time period] to [next crisis/key plot event]" a bit jarring, too. I'm afraid the final plot twist/reveal felt hollow too, although it is presumably the setup for the third film.

This is a sequel to Into the Spider-Verse, which I rather enjoyed. I'm afraid I was less happy with this film. Part of it is the lack of adequate ending; this just sort of stops (with some cliff-hangers) ready for the next film in the series. Partly it's that the multiverse thing is less new than it was in the previous film, and the whole musing-on-canon-thing feels too much like a plot device than something that really makes sense.

The action sequences are really good, though, and there's plenty of nice details that go flying past. And maybe the sequel will make it all worthwhile...

Avatar: The Way of Water is a sprawling spectacle of a film - over 3 hours long, and a sight to behold (I imagine it is much more impressive in a cinema in 3D, but I'm still not sure cinemas are sensible given Covid). Unfortunately, there isn't really the plot to support such an epic - both not enough plot for a film of this length, and also not enough quality to the plot - it was pretty predictable, saggy, and rather repetitive (even one of the characters complains about being tied to a ship's railings again). I'm not sure there's a lot thematically new here from the previous film (which I watched recently), though I can't really object to "commercial whaling is bad" as a message. The model of fatherhood was pretty weak, though - is "protecting" really all there is to it?

Nope is an altogether different piece of work - a horror film with UFOs that's also about our love of spectacle, how people deal with trauma, and the erasure of black contributions to industry. It also has a great sense of alien menace; but unlike some horror where the antagonist is essentially random, here there is some sense to what is going on. Some good funny moments, too. I'm not quite sure it hangs together as a coherent story, though - there's almost too much going on, with some of the backstories, and the various different character arcs.

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.

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 )

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.

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...

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.

Before going to see Blade Runner 2049, I re-watched the original (in the Final Cut version, which I don't think I'd seen before). It's still a classic, although the treatment of women is terrible (and I seem to notice more of that with each rewatch); the plot and visual tropes have inspired a vast amount of film sci-fi that's come since.

The sequel doesn't disappoint - the city-scape is very much from the same visual and audio space as the original, while the desert-scape of Las Vegas is a suitably post-apocalyptic wasteland. There's the same slow pacing (although at 2h40, this is substantially longer), and it's great to see Deckard back again, although I'm a little sad to see the ambiguity of his replicant-or-not nature from the original resolved. There are some great scenes, including a brawl in front of a holographic Elvis and some very creepy moments from Niander Wallace. And there's the continued theme of what it means to be human, and what sort of relationships we can or should have with those who are not.

There aren't really any new ideas, though, and the treatment of women is probably worse than in the original, which feels less forgiveable now than it might have been in 1982. And the bass was rather over-done to my ears, to the point of dragging you out of the scene sometimes. I'm sure I'm going to want to watch it again, though...