Category: review

William Gibson’s name first crops up attached to Neuromancer, which is held by many to be the genesis of the cyberpunk genre. Back in 1984, Gibson imagined a VR-Internet, coining the term ‘cyberspace’, extending contempary technologies to create a view of the future that was entirely possible. Neuromancer was set well into the future, imagining a world somewhat like Blade Runner, space stations and all, and one of its key premises of humans interfacing with computers directly, along with AI, served as inspiration for The Matrix.

While Neuromancer’s sequels Count Zero and Mona Lisa Overdrive (yep, Matrix again) were set along the same timeline inevitably, Gibson’s next major work moved backwards, coming closer to the present, with the Bridge series. Virtual Light, Idoru and All Tomorrow’s Parties were set in a future just around the corner, a post-modern world where earthquakes had struck Tokyo and San Francisco. There was still an element of Gibson’s defining science-fiction in these, but other than stylistically, they may as well have been written by a completely different author to those of the cyberpunk stories.

Post-2001, post-9/11, it would appear that Gibson left the science fiction genre entirely, his novels now set in a contempary world that is entirely recognisable. Pattern Recognition dealt with the story of a “cool hunter” chasing an unusual film being released peicemeal over the net – apart from one or two details, there was little in Pattern Recognition that was science fiction. Cayce Pollard, protagonist, uses a G4 Cube, catches entirely normal flights, and does yoga in a yoga studio in north London – no Boston-Atlanta conurbation here.

Spook Country takes this one step further. Gibson removes any element of the unknown, and refers to real-world events with an attached timeline, where Neuromancer had nary a reference to a year or date in it. 9/11 figures again, though not as prominently as in Pattern Recognition, and it’s clear Gibson has taken that date as a turning point. The story starts with three seperate threads, each interleaving their way to a finish that feels almost anti-climatic. Continue reading “Book Review: Spook Country by William Gibson”

I first read Dracula in year 8, for English, and I remember then that I had found it a little tedious, and yet simultaneously slightly terrifying. So what did I think when looking at a wall of ultra-cheap classics than “why not pick up this one again?”

I’ll freely admit I don’t have the head for horror stories, be it in movies or books. Indeed, books are worse because my overactive imagination which sees phantoms in every shadow is required throughout the book, while movies are far more passive and creating the horrors has been outsourced. When it’s from your own head, it’s somehow more attuned to the things which get to you, and much more freely called up…

In any case, I was reading Dracula again, despite reservations. I wanted to make an effort to read more of the classics this year, more on a whim than anything else.

Having read it before, I thought it wouldn’t have the same tension to it – but I realised I’d forgotten all but a vague structure, and my continuing dislike of the diarist style of story telling. There’s a lack of flow that annoys me, and the unrealism of being able to remember all the day’s events and conversations to the word is something I can’t quite put aside. It does however show off the writer’s strong ability to think differently for each character, something rare enough even in good stories.

I probably can leave out the bit here entirely where the plot of Dracula is discussed. Suffice to say, it is the prototypical vampire story, and it broadly sets the pattern for all later monster/horror stories. You’ve probably already seen it in one form or another, and it is predictable in many ways.

However… that’s not to say it’s not a strong story. There’s a reason it’s a classic, and it does stay reasonably enthralling. Being able to identify with some of the locations – having been to London – makes the story a little more real and relatable, and those strange noises in the dark make you jump that little bit more.

Stoker is occasionally inconsistent in the characterisation, particularly of Van Helsing, and parts of the story haven’t aged well; for example, when the men decide that Mina Harker is to play no more part in the pursuit of Dracula despite her having thus far been the key to their understanding, she accepts her role as a woman is not to step in front. Indeed, while this may have reflected the times, there is also something of an independent woman glimpsed in Mina’s character, which fleshes her out far more than Lucy.

All told, it is still a classic worth reading; Stoker only steps as far outside the mundane as is necessary to provide some excitement and narrative tension, which leaves it feeling more approachable than the completely extra-ordinary fantasies and horror stories. I can’t help but to think of Mel Brooks’ version of the story, though.

A visual review for a very visual movie:

Norah Jones debuts, with blueberry pie.

Wong Kar-wai plays with camera angles and positioning.

Rachel Weisz plays distinctly against type, and looks gorgeous, particularly with the soft-lighting treatment she gets all throughout.

The visual technique of looking through the windows is quite strong, and plays out the theme underlying the movie.

You may be beginning to guess that this movie is mostly at night…

Not really helped by placeholders such as this for daytime. (fear not, there’s at least 3 scenes in full daylight).

But even Nat Portman with a languid southern drawl can’t save the movie from its underwhelming plot. Gorgeous cinematography, but beyond the visuals there’s not much to it.

The Great Escape – An oldie but a goodie to start the year. Superb movie – if you haven’t seen it yet, do yourself a service and have a look-see. ★★★★★

I Am Legend – Will Smith is the last man left alive, a virologist named Robert Neville who has survived a virus which turns people into aggressive, cannibalistic, vampire-esque zombies who cannot come out in the day. Great effects, especially the empty New York, makes the setting effective. Smith plays the character well, and the zombies for the most part live up to the hype, but the plot has some holes in it that you’re expected to ignore for the sake of the horror/action part of the flick. Very different from the book, apparently. ★★★

Stardust – based on the novel by Neil Gaiman, Stardust is a fantasy flick that doesn’t try to follow in the footsteps of Lord of the Rings et al. This is more of an old fashioned fantasy adventure, with all the cues, and a well executed (albeit obvious) romance angle to boot – Gaiman in particular is adept at weaving the romance with the fantastic, and the actors don’t disappoint in executing the vision. ★★★★ (am kicking myself for not watching it sooner)

Wag the Dog – A political dark comedy set in the Clinton era; a president hoping to get re-elected needs something to distract the media when a potential sex scandal arises late in the campaign. Robert De Niro plays the deep-cover spin doctor who is brought in to save the day, as he stages a war built on rumor and doctored footage, with the able assistance of Dustin Hoffman’s Hollywood producer, to make it seem like the nation is at war and thus swaying the public to the incumbent. A little dated but very pointed and incisive. ★★★

3:10 to Yuma – Ponderous, slow burning Western from the school of old school westerns. ★★☆

National Treasure – Dear god, who comes up with these plots? Grabbing every possible conspiracy theory it can, this is cringe-worthy action that tries to be more intellectual about things. Not. ☆

Shoot ’em Up – The point at which you will realise how ridiculous this movie is when Clive Owen takes out a team of Secret Service agents while skydiving from a passenger jet. Forget realistic – this movie has no relation to reality what so ever. ★★ (one star all by itself for Monica Bellucci for… just being Monica Bellucci.)

War (a.k.a. Rogue Assassin) – Looks like a by-the-numbers organised crime movie until about 10 minutes from the end, and then… voila, good twist! Guess that, audience. Not enough ass-kicking, but that can be forgiven. ★★☆

Brick –

Nora Zehetner (above) is my new favourite cutie. Also, this movie needs watching more than once just to follow the goddamn slang, but it wouldn’t be the same without it. Feels very Chandler-esque. ★★★★☆

Balls of Fury – bwahahaha! :D Love this kind of movie that doesn’t take itself seriously at all. ★★★★

Rush Hour 3 – Can you ever go wrong with a Jackie Chan movie? Makes the first two Rush Hours look like paragons of plot complexity in comparison, but it is the same old formula and it works, by and large, for a laugh at least. ★★★

You Kill Me – I’d heard practically nothing about this movie until I saw the posters for it around London, but with Ben Kingsley and Téa Leoni (I’ve had a crush on her since Bad Boys), assassins, mafia and a darkly comic atmosphere to it all… err… well, ★★☆ anyway, and it is a bit of a different story.

Aladdin – Disney classics are infinitely rewatchable, even at this age, and Aladdin is a paragon of the genre. Robin Williams rocks in ways uncountable, and Jasmine is the Disney princess with the mostest. The story is mostly tightly paced and the animation excellent – makes you wonder why 3D is pretty much the only game in town these days. ★★★☆

The Darjeeling Limited – Slightly ponderous, but mostly thoughtful and quirky in a way that does keep your attention. I’ll pardon the fact that Darjeeling is almost directly opposite (in the east) to where the movies was shot (in Rajasthan to the west). Superb and non-exploitative. Adrien Brody wins, I think, out of the three. ★★★☆

Run Fatboy Run – Simon Pegg, need I mention, knows how to do a Brit comedy. While this one isn’t as laugh-out-loud funny as Hot Fuzz, it does have a little more of the heart-touching part to it. Pegg plays a man who runs out on his pregnant wife, and 5 years later tries to win her back from a super-competitive suitor by running a marathon – and as the title might suggest, he’s not exactly fit. Also stars Dylan Moran – need I say more? :) ★★★★

Interview – Steve Buscemi writes, directs and stars in this 80 minute pure character study alongside Sienna Miller. It’s far from action packed, but has drama aplenty as Buscemi’s down-on-his-luck journalist takes on Miller’s soap-actress-with-attitude. Feels a little dirty – a little like Buscemi just wanted an excuse to spend a few nights close-up with Miller :) ★★☆

Ok, I get the idea of alternative universes. I even dig the concept of a semi-steampunk world where people’s souls are ‘outside their bodies’, and exist as anthropomorphic animals that may or may not have the ability to speak (dependent on the importance of the character). I can even follow the idea of Nicole Kidman… well, when she is dressed as fine as that, I can follow her pretty much anywhere.

But. This movie, I did not get.

Where to begin? The introduction is all of 10 seconds before we’ve zoomed into the world of Lyra, a pre-teen English child – and if you’ve any idea of English fantasy novels, you will instantly click onto the fact that this protagonist is going to be our key character.

Let’s take a moment to look at that here. What is it about the English children in English fantasy stories that make them the ones that are pivotal to everything? For some reason, they’re imbued with a sense of indestructibility and of instant disregard for order, and manage to pull off feats which would be unthinkable for the ordinary grown-up. Yes, it is fantasy, but I’m detecting a cultural pattern here.

Lyra here comes from the Harry Potter school of heroism, running off with little preparation or foresight in an effort to save the world from itself, nobly assisted by a varied cast (that includes one angry polar ice bear, of all things voiced by Ian McKellan) who rush to the child’s aid regardless of the potential cost to themselves and the stupidity of the child which got them into the situation in the first place.

But I’m not here to critique the world of English fantasy literature; The Golden Compass – adapted from Phillip Pullman’s His Dark Materials trilogy – is the first of three movies, although you never get that indication from the film itself, which is questionable restraint on the part of the producers, given this is nowhere near as renowned as The Lord of the Rings.

From one who hasn’t read the source material, this better be the one that establishes the characters over the plot, because if the next two lack as much exposition as this one it’s going to be a bit of a mess. The entire movie feels a little like it’s there to introduce the characters and the world, with action aplenty to keep it interesting. However, it ends up feeling like you’re skim-reading, trying to get to the good bits – it doesn’t help to explain the world and how it works, and so the menace of some of the bad guys is played down, simply because we’re not given a clear picture of why they are menacing.

Nicole Kidman has a decent amount of screen time, but Daniel Craig appears all too briefly for such an intriguing character; Eva Green too makes far too little impact. Dakota Blue Richards does well, but she is a child yet, and yet to grow into acting quite within the range demanded of her in this movie.

Overall, puzzling. It intrigued me for its setup, but with most walking out of the movie scratching their heads, its merit is questionable yet. If it improves with the second volume… who knows. Read the books, I say.

★★

“The audience knows the truth; the world is simple, miserable, solid all the way through. But if you can fool them, even for a second, then you can make them wonder, then you get to see something very special – you really don’t know it? It was the look on their faces.”

Wow. What a screwball of a movie. Just when you really think you’ve got it more or less figured out, it jumps sideways at you. It’s a real magicians trick of a movie – afterwards, when the trick is explained, you pick up the little clues, and think “Oh yeah, I could’ve told you that from the start.” But, of course, you can’t, hence the brilliance.

★★★★

Reign Over Me: Funny, touching, and wonderfully written drama about a man (Adam Sandler) who retreats from his life after losing his family on September 11, 2001. Don Cheadle plays a dentist who appears to have it all – wife & kids, a house in Manhattan, and a successful practice – only to find he envies his college roommate Sandler.

Whenever Adam Sandler  strays from his ‘comedy’ stereotype, he manages to do reasonably well – Reign Over Me is by no means his best drama effort, but it is certainly a powerful performance. Minus points for being so overwrought about things. ★★★☆

Harry Potter and the Order of the Pheonix: Harry Potter is one angry little kid. Oh, sure, he’s getting older, but that just means he’s playing to type as the angry/angsty teenager. Oh look, there’s still 2 movies to go after this – guess what the ending will be? (not that you’ve already read the book, of course). At least there wasn’t any broomstick football inanity in this one.

The most surprising bit is the little glimpses back at the earlier movies, when the actors were so much younger. How quickly they grow up, eh? ★★★

The Simpsons Movie: Finally got to see this in one of the few theatres that were still running it – a combination of circumstances having prevented me up till now. I thought it best to see it in the cinema to give it the biggest contrast to watching the Simpsons on telly, and… well, maybe I racked up the expectations a bit.

It really is a little like an extended Simpsons episode, and while some gags run fine in the longer format, there’s a whole needless stretching of subplot that makes it a little tedious. The use of CG is also getting a little more obvious and pervasive, which was never the Simpsons style – that’s Futurama’s realm, dammit.

I certainly hope they don’t sequelise and monetize it to the ends of the earth. It would be good to see some longer-than-one-episode plots though, like the one that made Who Shot Mr Burns such an instant classic. ★★★☆