Book Review: Dreams of Amarna by Rachel Mary Wright - Craft, Creativity & Archaeology

In this review of Dreams of Amarna by Rachel Mary Wright, I explore how an art-based creative journey intersects with themes of archaeology, textile art, and unexpected mathematical thinking. This post offers both a personal reflection on the book and key takeaways for readers interested in creative process, history, and cultural exploration.

Introducing Dreams of Amarna

Unusually amongst books that get reviewed on this blog, Dreams of Amarna is not a maths book. Of course, it's difficult to see anything as entirely 'not-maths', but this 170-odd page, full-colour, hardback tale of embroidery is about as far outside my usual comfort-zone as it's possible to get.

Book cover: Dreams of Amarna, by Rachel Mary Wright

Book Review: Love Triangle by Matt Parker

Full disclosure: I received a free copy of the book on the promise that I would write this review, but you have my word that what follows is my honest appraisal! I need to take this opportunity to apologise profusely to Matt^[1]. Love Triangle is Matt Parker’s playful and deeply mathematical exploration of why triangles - and trigonometry, geometry, and other mathematical themes - matter in the real world.

Love Triangle, The Life Changing Magic of Trigonometry^[2] is Matt Parker's n^th offering to the pop-sci shelves in your bookshop of choice, where n is a number that's a little bigger every time I look it up. He's one of the more well-known current writers of books destined for that section that have an explicit focus on maths, mathematical applications, and real-world examples of maths; and his trademark informal style of unashamed explicit nerdity carried along by a current of comic sarcasm might not be for everyone, but it does seem to do the job for more people than it doesn't.

My copy of the book starts with a note...

Maths in the Movies: Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny

The 5th movie in the Indiana Jones series was released in the UK on 28th June 2023. Amongst the fans in my circle of friends it has been well-received, certainly more so than the 4th instalment (Kingdom of the Crystal Skull) was. This isn't a general review^[1], but a brief discussion of some of the mathematical themes that make an appearance.

I'll do my best to make the following spoiler-free, but as I'm discussing things that happen in the movie I can't guarantee that I'll manage. With that in mind, if you haven't yet seen the movie the safest course of action would be to lock this post in a snake-ridden vault and grab your hat & whip and head out to the cinema before reading any further.

Books with Maths in Them: Diaspora (Greg Egan)

Greg Egan is an author I hadn't encountered until Albert recommended one of his books in response to my request for 'books with maths in them'.

Diaspora is, at the time of writing, available for only 99p on Amazon Kindle.

Diaspora, released in 1997, is a science fiction novel set some time after much of humanity has left behind corporeal form to become software-based beings living in simulated realties. They interact with the 'real' universe by way of a network of probes, sensors, drones and digital archives spread out across the solar system and collectively known as the Coalition of Polises, with the post-humans who exist within it referred to as Citizens. Some people eschewed this mass-migration and remained as biological entities (known as Fleshers) but have since formed a variety of communities representing the span of possibilities between using science to heavily modify their genes (for longevity, improved intelligence, or to thrive in extreme environments, for example), and just letting nature take its course. Somewhere in between are the Gleisners who transmuted into digital form but inhabit individual, flesher-shaped robots in order to interact more closely and personally with the real world.

The Third Reich Is Listening

As Bletchley Park's "Enigma Man*" I was often asked the question "... but what were the other side doing?" The museum doesn't cover this side of the story other than very fleetingly and in passing so it was always tricky to answer, but it is nevertheless a very pertinent - and thoroughly interesting - question.

This is my copy of The Third Reich is Listening and you can't have it (but you're welcome to buy your own, or borrow it from a library, of course)

This post is, essentially, a review of Christian Jennings' The Third Reich is Listening. Its subtitle "Inside German Codebreaking 1939 - 1945" tells you the main focus of the book, but the story does start earlier than that, summarising work done by key characters in World War I and the inter-war years.

Film Review: Mile 22

Friday night's cinema trip saw Mark Wahlberg monologuing his little socks off through this espionage-action-thriller. Catch up on the trailer below:

After some character introduction, scene-setting and plot exposition the movie eventually gets to the crux: an asset needs transporting twenty two miles (ah, right) to an extraction point. This (probably not a spoiler) doesn't go entirely to plan. John Malkovich tells them they need to get there quickly; no delays. There are plenty of delays and they, naturally, get there just in time.

It's a pretty violent film with guns, explosions, blood, death and some pretty impressive martial arts scenes courtsey of Iko Uwais (fans of The Raid movies will recognise this name). There's a decent core story delivered by some famous names (Lauren Cohen will be a lot more famous in my head once I've finally got around to watching The Walking Dead), and on the whole I enjoyed the experience.

That said, there's a lot of padding for such a short movie (94 minutes). There's a sort of narrative device which sees Wahlberg popping up every so often part-way through an interview which is evidently a post-balls-up inquiry. This goes nowhere. His character's super-intelligence and the fact that he's somewhere on the autistic spectrum is regularly mentioned, though this has no bearing on the plot other than to be occasionally used by the other characters to explain away him being an arsehole at points. There's a nuclear weapons/ terrorism backdrop which also doesn't really come to anything and appears to be a bit of a red herring to draw viewers away from the plot twist, which really isn't groundbreaking enough to require being drawn away from.

Also, it's pretty derivative. There's a street shootout that isn't quite Heat. Uwais runs around an apartment block decking people with cool moves, but it isn't The Raid. There's even a little Ronin in there somewhere.

Ignore all that, though, and it's not a terrible way to spend 94 minutes if you're into action movies and like a bit of Wahlberg. It's forgettable, a bit confusing at points, and probably has some enormous plot holes if you think too deeply about it, but if a bit of Friday night violence is your thing, it's better than heading into town and baiting the big guy at the bar, and you get a thick smear of psuedo-plot thrown into the bargain.

Film Review: The Little Stranger

It's Sunday night, and it's not unusual for me to head to the cinema. This week, based on a novel by Sarah Waters, it's The Little Stranger. The trailer (below) paints a picture of a spooky mystery; an evil presence in an old, run-down house.

The movie left me cold. It feels like a slow-burner that's going to kick off any minute, and then after a little less than two hours it just stops. There a a couple of moments that are seemingly intended to shock, but delivered so matter-of-factly, so stoic, British, stiff-upper-liply they barely moved me at all, other than to think "great, it's getting started now." But no. Back to plodding along until the next mildly unnerving moment in an otherwise sedentary story.

I had a lovely one hundred and eleven minute sit down, with each scene's background wonderfully evocative of post- World War II middle England: dreary and grey but somehow beautiful at the same time. There's some fantastic imagery surrounding the house, too: it's a gorgeous gothic mansion in the flashback scenes, a vibrant backdrop to a young and happy family; and then in the present day it's as dilapidated and unkempt as the older-than-their-years remnants that are fighting a losing battle on the inside.

None of this, however, detracts from the fact that it just doesn't give what the trailer promises. There are hints of ghost story, but this never develops into anything. A tease of family madness, but this, too is left largely unexplored. A dark past that's hinted at all too briefly and then left unresolved.

Maybe I missed something. Should I read the book?

Movie Review: Ted

I went to see Ted on Friday. For those not in the know, it's a movie from Family Guy creator Seth McFarlane, starring McFarlane, Mark Wahlberg and Mila Kunis.

The basic premise, without spoiling anything, involves a young John Bennett making a wish for his teddy bear to come to life. It does. Cut to twenty-odd years later and John's now thirty-five and played by Wahlberg, and his teddy (Ted) is still very much alive and kicking.

I'm going to split this review into two parts, now:


You'll Love This Film If:

• You find Family Guy consistently funny. [I don't]
• You enjoy Patrick Stewart doing eloquent and received-pronunciation voice-overs which include saying things which are slightly inappropriate. [I do]
• You were born in the 80s and have some sort of nostalgia for 80s things. [I do]
• A certain 80s science fiction movie with a soundtrack from Queen had any kind of formative influence on you. [It did in my case]
• You think Mark Wahlberg's actually a pretty decent actor, and surprisingly versatile given his back catalogue, and that he's pretty damned good at acting with a co-star who's not really there. [I do]
• You want to give the more 'thinky' parts of your brain a rest, and give the parts that laugh at farts an airing. [I do, from time to time]

You'll Hate This Film If:

• You dislike gratuitous drug references in movies. [I do]
• You dislike gratuitous swearing in movies. [I do]
• You dislike gratuitous sex references in movies. [I do]
• You dislike gratuitous minority-group slurs in movies (whether or not they're supposed to be 'ironic'). [I do]
• You've never seen Flash Gordon. [I have]

You'll probably be ticking some of the points in both sections. In this case, you've just got to think about what outweighs what: Flash Gordon was a massive influence on my upbringing, so this cancelled out a couple of the gratuitousness items, for example.

Ted is not big and it's not clever. Intellectually, it's on a similar level to Dude, Where's My Car? but it does have its moments. If you're prepared to dig deep enough you can find some decent social commentary and a moral or two, but the underlying 'drugs and swearing are totally things that are fine to do all of the time' aspect of the movie will stop me rushing out to buy it when it's released on DVD. If you're a Patrick Stewart fan you'll want to see the beginning and the end, and for the Flash Gordon - philes, you'll want to stick around for the middle. If you're someone who owns Family Guy box sets, you'll probably be crying with laughter most of the way through.

One of the best things about this movie is that it is yet another example of Mark Wahlberg's acting talent. His acting opposite a CGI teddy bear is so naturally believable I'm not sure I can believe it. He plays a drug, booze and swearing-obsessed guy but manages to get you to like him anyway, which is good because the movie wouldn't work at all if you didn't.

In short, it's a simple movie that rides on the back of Family Guy in that most of its humour is "you can't say that!" shock-value based, with a little bit of slapstick thrown in now and then. As with Family Guy most of its actual appeal comes from the frequent references to the 80s, frequent references to science fiction, and frequent references to 80s science fiction. If any of this holds any interest for you, and if you're able to set the higher parts of your brain on some other task for the duration of the film, you'll probably enjoy it.

Prometheus: A Review

I've just indulged in one of my loner-trips to the cinema to (finally) catch Prometheus before it disappears from the big screen, after having heard mixed reviews. Many people seem to think it's brilliant, with an equal number proclaiming it a travesty against the genre.

For those who aren't in the know, Prometheus is Ridley Scott's latest number, set in the same universe as the Alien series of films. It's set prior to the events in Alien, Aliens and the other really rubbish sequels, but isn't a direct prequel of the series.

I think I liked it.


The Good Stuff.

It's slick, pacey and stylish, with convincing effects, and even the 3D* was good. The soundtrack was effective, although I like a bit more silence in my movies - yes, a film score helps to set the mood, but at the same time, creeping edgily through a derelict alien spacecraft on a godforsaken rock** is a bit less realistic if it sounds like you're being accompanied by a full orchestra. The story itself was enticing, and I felt that it went on for about the right length of time- I wasn't left thinking 'was that it?', nor did I breathe a sigh of relief when my aching backside was finally released from the torment that is a cinema seat.


The Bad Stuff.

Seriously, Ridley, geeks are clever people. Sci-Fi geeks are into the Fi largely because they know at least a bit about the Sci and want to explore the extremities of what's plausible. Give us some credit. The sciencey bits in Prometheus came straight from The Ladybird Book Of How To Make Yourself Sound All Sciencey*** with barely a nod to actual science. It strikes me at an odd angle that science fiction movies these days are all so blasé with regards to actually making the science believable. Right from the beginning I was left wondering at how the Prometheus had managed to travel five light-years in only two years whilst having only very rudimentary suspended animation technology. The very premise of the movie (which I shan't go into here so as not to spoil it for the few people who haven't seen it) had the biologist in me squirming uncomfortably, and there barely is any biologist in me at all.

I'm ranting - sorry. The plot itself was full of holes so large you could fly an Imperial Star Destroyer through most of them without worrying too much about scratching the paintwork.

But despite all that, I quite liked it. Fassbender's robo-Pinocchio was excellently played and wonderfully dialogued (and monologued, in parts), and he stole the show. Some of the other characters were a bit two-dimensional, and a couple may as well have started the film in red shirts and with targets tattooed on their foreheads, but clichés aside it was an enjoyable enough movie, and I'll be interested in seeing the inevitable sequel (they left that wide open...)




* I'm not always a fan of 3D, as it seems to be a gimmick for getting punters to part with more cash and doesn't often add much to a movie. It seems to be settling down a bit now, but it's still more moneygrabbing than innovative moviemaking, in my opinion.
** Yes, this particular cliché was delivered by Charlize herself.
*** Which doesn't actually exist, but I might write it myself now I've thought of it.

The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel - A Review

It's not a genre of film that I'd usually think too hard about watching from its trailer alone: there were no car chases, spaceships, shootouts, aliens, flux capacitors, Natalie Portmans or orbital slingshot manoeuvres even hinted at. What did attract me, though, was one more thing that I like in a movie: dry British wit.

The premise of The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel is this: a bunch of previously unconnected old people, including Bill Nighy, Penelope Wilton*, Maggie Smith and Judi Dench **, find themselves, after various personal misfortunes, leaving their British lives behind and hightailing it to Jaipur's Best Exotic Marigold Hotel for the Elderly and Beautiful. Far from the paradise depicted in the brochure, it's a ramshackle ruin with inept but infinitely positive and lovable Sonny (Dev Patel) working in vain to resurrect his father's dream. The bunch, along with Sonny, share experiences that change their views of the world in ways that none of them could have predicted.

The film contains a stream of expertly delivered lines with the comic timing that we've come to expect from the likes of Bill Nighy, and if I had to pick just one genre to fit the film into, it'd be comedy. It's funny from start to finish, with the audience regularly laughing out loud and a refreshing feeling that all the funny bits hadn't been in the trailer. But it's not just funny: each character has their own storyline, their own reason for leaving their life behind. Each of these storylines is compelling and unique, and the characters themselves are wonderfully three-dimensional without the need for silly glasses to see them as such.

Best Exotic explores such themes as homosexuality, casual racism, old-age, death (both of people and of relationships), love and Delhi-belly with maturity and subtlety, and these themes neither detract from nor are hindered by the movie's comedic streak.

A number of my favourite films are British, and this is a shining example of the British film industry doing what it does best: intelligent, funny, emotional and completely watchable comedy drama. It's a reminder that a film can be funny without slapstick; that it can explore edgy topics without shoving them in your face. This one, in my opinion, is a keeper, and may well be the best British movie in quite a while.

* These first two in, essentially, the same roles they played in Sean of the Dead. Well, they're married, at least.

** I struggle to think of this lot as old people even if, according to the figures, they are.

The A-Team movie (2010): A quick review

I've just got back from seeing the new A-Team movie at the Odeon cinema in Leicester. I'll try not to give too much away, but be warned that there may be one or two spoilers contained below...

The short review
It was awesome.


The longer review
I can't remember the last time I saw a movie at the cinema in its first week, let alone its first day, but I've been looking forward to this one for a while. I turned up at the cinema to find the longest queue I have ever seen at any cinema, and quickly decided that the best thing to do would be to book tickets online (using my mobile), bypassing the queue entirely. This meant that I couldn't use my Orange Wednesday ticket, but hey, this is the A-Team. How often does an A-Team movie come out? Anyway...

The premise...
The first few scenes introduced the characters wonderfully, and I found the premise behind these scenes to be interesting: rather than being set after the TV series, or before it as a prequel, the movie reinvents the concept in a modern setting. The very beginning shows Hannibal and Face, who are already friends and comrades, meeting B.A. and Murdock for the first time. Cut to 8 years later, and the team are a unit of American soldiers towards the end of the war in Iraq. They are sent on a covert mission and... stuff happens. I won't detail what, but it's a good modern analogue of the Hanoi bank job that is the back story for the original series.

The characters...
Hannibal, Face, B.A. and Murdock are all very definitely the characters from the TV series, but modernised. This is a good thing, though: played absolutely faithfully, many of the team's original characteristics would jar against our expectations in a world that's moved on 18 years since the series first started: changed attitudes would have us not liking certain characters as much as we should (Face's misogyny, for example, has been toned down, but he's still the womanising conman we all love). Lynch is in the movie, but the only thing lifted from the original is his name: he's not even an army colonel. Having said that, the Lynch character is intriguing, entertaining and a worthy adversary for the boys.

The plot and action...

Ludicrous plans, over-the-top action scenes, generally unbelievable plot devices. In short: perfect. There are a couple of scenes that pay decent homage to the B.A-welding, Murdock-being-crazy, build-stuff-out-of-whatever's-lying-around montages from the series, and the original A-Team theme tune makes a brief appearance on a couple of occasions (but not enough for my liking!)

The verdict...
I loved it. I thought it was an excellent tribute to one of my favourite television shows. It brought the concept up to date, changed all the bits that needed changing and kept most of what made it brilliant the first time around. I'd love to see a new TV series resulting from this, but I can't see it happening.
Will you like it? If you want it to be exactly the same as the TV series, then no. But if you ever truly thought that it would be, you're kidding yourself. If you want to see a decent tribute, but are open minded to having a few things changed to make it suitable for a 2010 audience (some of whom have never seen the original series, remember), then you'll love it!

Some almost-spoilers...

• Stick around until the end. The very, absolute end.
• The van! There needs to be a sequel to put that right.
• I love it when a movie gets all self-referential.