Why take a fridge hitch-hiking around Ireland?
Well, Tony Hawks' approach is best summed up by the question why not? Although, it may be fair to spectulate that a £100 drunken bet with a friend may also have played a small part in his motivations.
The account of his journey in 1997 is populated by a cast of Irish eccentrics who seem to have walked off the set of Father Ted and into non-fiction. Indeed, he introduces us to the hierarchy of the many, many Irish pubs he visits including, but not limited to the 'lead drunk'.
As often as not in this book, Tony Hawks himself seems to be making a bid for that title. Indeed, the story is for the most part a collection of barely remembered evenings from a bloke carrying a fridge.
Hawks takes occasional brief but interesting diversions into whether the fridge itself has gained a personality as the result of its travels. Indeed, he christens it 'Saoirse' - the Irish Gaelic word for 'freedom' - somewhat appropriate given that the fridge gives Hawks a certain freedom through the popularity it lends him.
This is helped to a large extent by the helpfulness of the Irish media, who track every step of his journey, doubtless making it easier on a hitch-hiker standing at the side of the road with only a fridge for company.
Throughout this long, seemingly pointless quest, Hawks never loses his easy affability or sense of joy, despite standing in rainstorms which would test the hardiest souls.
His journey, as he admits, taught him very little and he concedes that it did not achieve anything.
Nor did it have to. The story instead serves as a reminder of the importance of pointless endeavours and the never-ending supply of indulgence for such journeys on both sides of the Irish Sea.
Sunday 30 December 2012
Tuesday 25 December 2012
'Life of Pi' by Yann Martel (book)
Surrealist and beyond the classification of genre, Life of Pi is a fable (there you go, I tried) that deserves to be read and re-read.
Set initially in Pondicherry, the former French enclave on the east coast of India, our narrator and protagonist is a teenage boy named Piscine Molitor Patel. This name is the cue for many jokes from his school mates of predictable content - he gains the nickname 'Pissing' amongst others.
In an attempt to confound them, he shortens it to Pi, the number that supposedly holds the key to many unresolved questions of the universe. Indeed, the first third of the book largely consists of Pi exploring both religious and atheist philosophies, as if the name were a tag to live up to.
Simultaneously, he faces physical challenges of his own from his stubborn father, a zookeeper, who insists that Pi learn from the animals he keeps about the ruthlessness of survival of the fittest.
This knowledge soon becomes extremely relevant when Pi's father decides to move the family to Canada. All seems set fair on their journey by sea until an accident leaves Pi shipwrecked and seemingly alone.
It is at this point that the tale becomes one of the battle between a young man's de-hydrated and starved logical mind and his overactive imagination. Given the aforementioned surrealism of the novel and that he spends most of his time on the lifeboat in the company of a Bengal tiger, it is fairly easy to guess which of these wins.
In amongst the wreckage, both literal and metaphorical, of Pi's previous life are fragments of hope and courage. Even upon arrival at a mysterious tropical island, which seems to offer a safe haven, Pi remains an unselfish and sympathetic character.
Yet, Life of Pi remains open in its exploration of the darker aspects of basic survival. Despite asking much of Pi, he, and ultimately us as the readers are left with as many questions as answers at the end of the book.
Whilst this is frustrating, it also offers space for further exploration. At times I felt that Life of Pi was a bit too pleased with itself but for the most part it is an intriguing story and remarkably readable given the size of its ideas.
It is also one of the few Booker Prize winning novels that is not completely impenetrable. I now look forward to seeing if Ang Lee's film adaptation lives up to its source material.
PS: Merry Christmas to one and all!
Set initially in Pondicherry, the former French enclave on the east coast of India, our narrator and protagonist is a teenage boy named Piscine Molitor Patel. This name is the cue for many jokes from his school mates of predictable content - he gains the nickname 'Pissing' amongst others.
In an attempt to confound them, he shortens it to Pi, the number that supposedly holds the key to many unresolved questions of the universe. Indeed, the first third of the book largely consists of Pi exploring both religious and atheist philosophies, as if the name were a tag to live up to.
Simultaneously, he faces physical challenges of his own from his stubborn father, a zookeeper, who insists that Pi learn from the animals he keeps about the ruthlessness of survival of the fittest.
This knowledge soon becomes extremely relevant when Pi's father decides to move the family to Canada. All seems set fair on their journey by sea until an accident leaves Pi shipwrecked and seemingly alone.
It is at this point that the tale becomes one of the battle between a young man's de-hydrated and starved logical mind and his overactive imagination. Given the aforementioned surrealism of the novel and that he spends most of his time on the lifeboat in the company of a Bengal tiger, it is fairly easy to guess which of these wins.
In amongst the wreckage, both literal and metaphorical, of Pi's previous life are fragments of hope and courage. Even upon arrival at a mysterious tropical island, which seems to offer a safe haven, Pi remains an unselfish and sympathetic character.
Yet, Life of Pi remains open in its exploration of the darker aspects of basic survival. Despite asking much of Pi, he, and ultimately us as the readers are left with as many questions as answers at the end of the book.
Whilst this is frustrating, it also offers space for further exploration. At times I felt that Life of Pi was a bit too pleased with itself but for the most part it is an intriguing story and remarkably readable given the size of its ideas.
It is also one of the few Booker Prize winning novels that is not completely impenetrable. I now look forward to seeing if Ang Lee's film adaptation lives up to its source material.
PS: Merry Christmas to one and all!
Monday 24 December 2012
'The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey' dir. Peter Jackson
Ok, so here were my concerns before seeing the first part of this new trilogy:-
1. The Hobbit is not a very long book - only just over 250 pages so how was Peter Jackson going to spread that story across three separate films?
2. Nor is it a sprawling epic in the manner of Lord of The Rings. It is much more of a straighforward narrative of Bilbo Baggins and his adventures.
3. Would any of the content of the book (including vast quantities of drinking, eating and getting lost in the woods) really translate to a Jacksonian three hour epic? Let alone three of them.
Having seen An Unexpected Journey, I am not convinced that any of those issues are resolved.
The film is nonetheless a fun romp through Middle Earth which includes almost the entire British acting profession in its cast. The first among equals is Ian McKellen, who makes a welcome return as Gandalf and, as always, the scenes in which he shouts spells at nasty creatures are particular high points.
Martin Freeman is unsurprisingly excellent as Bilbo, channeling all his knowledge of Tim Canterbury, Arthur Dent and John Watson to the part of the supposed everyman. His homely, awkward manner at the start is soon replaced by an inner toughness that even he was not aware of until the Dwarves dragged him away from The Shire.
Ken Stott, Richard Armitage and James Nesbitt are among the dwarves who ham it up to eleven. Their shared quest is to retrieve their lost kingdom from the dragon Smaug. The fact that Smaug barely even appears in the film is indicative of how much they have stretched the story of the book - perhaps the CGI budget was looking a bit thin.
Appearances from Ian Holm (as the elder Bilbo, narrating), Elijah Wood (the evergreen Frodo), Hugo Weaving (Elrond), Christopher Lee (Saruman), Cate Blanchett (Galadriel) and Andy Serkis (Gollum) all feel a little shoehorned in. Much of one of the more interesting scenes in Rivendell is a discussion between Elrond, Gandalf, Galadriel and Saruman about 'dark portents' and 'the presence of a new evil'. Wonder what that could refer to?
Nevertheless, the atmosphere of the vast majority of the film is entirely different from Lord of The Rings. It is a lighter, more comic tone, in keeping with the book in that respect. The scale feels that much smaller and the characters that much less concerned with the outcome of their quest. Much time is spent drinking, smoking or feasting.
For this reason, some of the scenes seem a little dragged out. Especially one shared by Bilbo and Gollum that seems a bit early in the trilogy for its purpose. Serkis nonetheless manages to convey the usual sense of unease and threat in his performance.
There are some very enthralling and fun sequences in the film but I left the cinema no more convinced that the book has sufficient material to be stretched over three films. It felt altogether looser than Lord of The Rings and whilst this was entertaining at times, it lacked the same intensity.
Worth a look but too spun out for my liking.
1. The Hobbit is not a very long book - only just over 250 pages so how was Peter Jackson going to spread that story across three separate films?
2. Nor is it a sprawling epic in the manner of Lord of The Rings. It is much more of a straighforward narrative of Bilbo Baggins and his adventures.
3. Would any of the content of the book (including vast quantities of drinking, eating and getting lost in the woods) really translate to a Jacksonian three hour epic? Let alone three of them.
Having seen An Unexpected Journey, I am not convinced that any of those issues are resolved.
The film is nonetheless a fun romp through Middle Earth which includes almost the entire British acting profession in its cast. The first among equals is Ian McKellen, who makes a welcome return as Gandalf and, as always, the scenes in which he shouts spells at nasty creatures are particular high points.
Martin Freeman is unsurprisingly excellent as Bilbo, channeling all his knowledge of Tim Canterbury, Arthur Dent and John Watson to the part of the supposed everyman. His homely, awkward manner at the start is soon replaced by an inner toughness that even he was not aware of until the Dwarves dragged him away from The Shire.
Ken Stott, Richard Armitage and James Nesbitt are among the dwarves who ham it up to eleven. Their shared quest is to retrieve their lost kingdom from the dragon Smaug. The fact that Smaug barely even appears in the film is indicative of how much they have stretched the story of the book - perhaps the CGI budget was looking a bit thin.
Appearances from Ian Holm (as the elder Bilbo, narrating), Elijah Wood (the evergreen Frodo), Hugo Weaving (Elrond), Christopher Lee (Saruman), Cate Blanchett (Galadriel) and Andy Serkis (Gollum) all feel a little shoehorned in. Much of one of the more interesting scenes in Rivendell is a discussion between Elrond, Gandalf, Galadriel and Saruman about 'dark portents' and 'the presence of a new evil'. Wonder what that could refer to?
Nevertheless, the atmosphere of the vast majority of the film is entirely different from Lord of The Rings. It is a lighter, more comic tone, in keeping with the book in that respect. The scale feels that much smaller and the characters that much less concerned with the outcome of their quest. Much time is spent drinking, smoking or feasting.
For this reason, some of the scenes seem a little dragged out. Especially one shared by Bilbo and Gollum that seems a bit early in the trilogy for its purpose. Serkis nonetheless manages to convey the usual sense of unease and threat in his performance.
There are some very enthralling and fun sequences in the film but I left the cinema no more convinced that the book has sufficient material to be stretched over three films. It felt altogether looser than Lord of The Rings and whilst this was entertaining at times, it lacked the same intensity.
Worth a look but too spun out for my liking.
Tuesday 20 November 2012
'Playing the Moldovans at Tennis' by Tony Hawks
The likeable Tony Hawks as our guide through a tale so strange that it only seems to emerge through this particular sub-genre of travelogue.
He and his friend Arthur Smith bet during an England-Moldova football qualifier that Tony cannot meet and beat all of the Moldovan national football team at Tennis. Tony takes on the challenge such as it is and shortly finds himself, via a bizarre interlude with a Beatles tribute band, in Moldova attempting to commence his bet.
What follows is an account of Moldovan life often startling for its honesty and adherence to reality despite the way these harsh truths contrast with Hawks' own cheery positivity.
He finds a reserved, reluctant people, emerging from an era of totalitarian rule and at first, this is reflected in his lack of success at getting access to his chosen footballers.
Among the best of those he meets are his adoptive family, a young girl called Elena and her elder brother Adrian provide him with inspiration as he struggles to even play a few games of tennis. These difficulties in convincing the Moldovan authorities to allow him access to its footballers seems indicative of the corruption that is endemic in societies which struggle economically.
Despite these difficulties, the emerging theme is one of the decency of most of the people Tony encounters. One of his strengths as a writer is his ability to convey the best in people and to show that even beneath the masks we all wear as adults, most of us are able to be touched by the people that surround us.
As the book ends, in predictably hilarious circumstances, Tony shows that even in emerging from his bet, he is unchanged in his views about Moldova and the experiences he had there. His charity work since writing the book bears testament to the relationship he built with the place.
Time well spent I would say.
He and his friend Arthur Smith bet during an England-Moldova football qualifier that Tony cannot meet and beat all of the Moldovan national football team at Tennis. Tony takes on the challenge such as it is and shortly finds himself, via a bizarre interlude with a Beatles tribute band, in Moldova attempting to commence his bet.
What follows is an account of Moldovan life often startling for its honesty and adherence to reality despite the way these harsh truths contrast with Hawks' own cheery positivity.
He finds a reserved, reluctant people, emerging from an era of totalitarian rule and at first, this is reflected in his lack of success at getting access to his chosen footballers.
Among the best of those he meets are his adoptive family, a young girl called Elena and her elder brother Adrian provide him with inspiration as he struggles to even play a few games of tennis. These difficulties in convincing the Moldovan authorities to allow him access to its footballers seems indicative of the corruption that is endemic in societies which struggle economically.
Despite these difficulties, the emerging theme is one of the decency of most of the people Tony encounters. One of his strengths as a writer is his ability to convey the best in people and to show that even beneath the masks we all wear as adults, most of us are able to be touched by the people that surround us.
As the book ends, in predictably hilarious circumstances, Tony shows that even in emerging from his bet, he is unchanged in his views about Moldova and the experiences he had there. His charity work since writing the book bears testament to the relationship he built with the place.
Time well spent I would say.
Sunday 11 November 2012
'Argo' dir. Ben Affleck
After a patchy early career ('Pearl Harbour' anyone?) and some lean years where he virtually disappeared from our screens, Ben Affleck is in the process of carving out a new niche for himself as an actor/director. In this well constructed action film, he does a very fine job of both.
Based on a true story, 'Argo' is the tale of how Tony Mendez (Affleck) of the CIA was given a brief to retrieve six US Embassy staff who escaped capture when their building was routed in Tehran in 1979. The method suggested to achieve this goal was unconventional to say the least.
The government comissioned Hollywood producer Lester Siegel (Alan Arkin) and make up artist John Chambers (John Goodman) to begin publicity for their their latest blockbuster - 'Argo' - a science fiction in the late 70's mould. The promotional work for this non-existent film was a ruse to get Mendez permission to enter Iran posing as a Canadian film maker.
Upon arrival, he informs the embassy staff that they must also pretend to be part of the 'Argo' film crew. They are given false Canadian passports and are told to learn their new identities inside out.
There is some understandable reluctance among the group to tell such a tall tale in the hope of escaping Iran but they soon recognise that there are few alternatives. A scene follows in which Affleck expertly ratchets up the tension as the Westerners face the full hostility of The Iranian Revolution in the main bazaar.
This is where the film is at its best as the chaos and mistrust of those fateful months is rendered in vivid detail. The embassy staff come to realise that they have litle control over their own fate in such an unpredictable place.
Back home in the US, the interested parties at the CIA, the White House and in Hollywood can only watch and wait as Mendez does his job. We are given glimpses of how those unfortunate enough not to escape the embassy were treated and how this was felt deeply among Americans.
Meanwhile, Mendez is characterised as a man with a strong sense of right and wrong but a chaotic personal life. The people he is helping to escape likewise seem like believable human beings - just as any of us would be they are terrified by the situation they find themselves in and just want to get home.
And this is the strongest aspect of the film - it's message about how good, intelligent people can overcome fear and mistrust if they work together, even under pressure of unimaginable magnitude.
The film also recognises that America's relationship with Iran at that time was characterised by morally grey double dealing as well as taking on the gritty subject of the violent chaos instigated by the Islamic Revolution, but it is always clear about the divide between those who do good and those that embrace such chaos.
Bizarrely, the non-existent science fiction film 'Argo' carries the same message in a camp, kitsch 70's way that appeals to various parties who are chasing Mendez and his fugitives. In one especially memorable scene, the would-be film crew give a copy of the story board to an interrogator to placate him.
Yet, despite these moments of intensity, a seam of humour runs throughout, recognising that people under such difficult circumstances have to keep laughing in order to get through. It is this that shows 'Argo' its best with its warm sense of humanity amidst harsh circumstances.
Based on a true story, 'Argo' is the tale of how Tony Mendez (Affleck) of the CIA was given a brief to retrieve six US Embassy staff who escaped capture when their building was routed in Tehran in 1979. The method suggested to achieve this goal was unconventional to say the least.
The government comissioned Hollywood producer Lester Siegel (Alan Arkin) and make up artist John Chambers (John Goodman) to begin publicity for their their latest blockbuster - 'Argo' - a science fiction in the late 70's mould. The promotional work for this non-existent film was a ruse to get Mendez permission to enter Iran posing as a Canadian film maker.
Upon arrival, he informs the embassy staff that they must also pretend to be part of the 'Argo' film crew. They are given false Canadian passports and are told to learn their new identities inside out.
There is some understandable reluctance among the group to tell such a tall tale in the hope of escaping Iran but they soon recognise that there are few alternatives. A scene follows in which Affleck expertly ratchets up the tension as the Westerners face the full hostility of The Iranian Revolution in the main bazaar.
This is where the film is at its best as the chaos and mistrust of those fateful months is rendered in vivid detail. The embassy staff come to realise that they have litle control over their own fate in such an unpredictable place.
Back home in the US, the interested parties at the CIA, the White House and in Hollywood can only watch and wait as Mendez does his job. We are given glimpses of how those unfortunate enough not to escape the embassy were treated and how this was felt deeply among Americans.
Meanwhile, Mendez is characterised as a man with a strong sense of right and wrong but a chaotic personal life. The people he is helping to escape likewise seem like believable human beings - just as any of us would be they are terrified by the situation they find themselves in and just want to get home.
And this is the strongest aspect of the film - it's message about how good, intelligent people can overcome fear and mistrust if they work together, even under pressure of unimaginable magnitude.
The film also recognises that America's relationship with Iran at that time was characterised by morally grey double dealing as well as taking on the gritty subject of the violent chaos instigated by the Islamic Revolution, but it is always clear about the divide between those who do good and those that embrace such chaos.
Bizarrely, the non-existent science fiction film 'Argo' carries the same message in a camp, kitsch 70's way that appeals to various parties who are chasing Mendez and his fugitives. In one especially memorable scene, the would-be film crew give a copy of the story board to an interrogator to placate him.
Yet, despite these moments of intensity, a seam of humour runs throughout, recognising that people under such difficult circumstances have to keep laughing in order to get through. It is this that shows 'Argo' its best with its warm sense of humanity amidst harsh circumstances.
Sunday 4 November 2012
'The Perks of Being a Wallflower' dir. Stephen Chbosky
An inexplicable dread filled me when I entered the cinema to watch this one. It may have had something to do with the faux Indie premise or the prospect of an angsty teenage film but I have to say I was pleasantly surprised.
Logan Lerman is charming as the shy, socially awkward Charlie, the hero of the film who holds a deep unrequited love for Sam (Emma Watson). The story is about growing up and about the contradictions of our later teenage years as well as those mistakes that we all make in our initial romantic stumblings.
What follows is a tale of deep poignancy as Sam and Charlie feel they way around through one failed relationship to another, never quite crossing one another at the right time. What binds them both is a shared past that neither realise until late in the tale.
Around these two are the rest of the group - the charismatic Patrick (Ezra Miller) whose extreme flamboyance hides a sensitive inner self. Mae Whitman plays Mary-Elizabeth, Charlie's girlfriend, who seems destined for great things but is yet to realise her potential. All roads lead to the Ivy League for these bright young things but none of them have sufficient control over their personal lives for comfort.
In this no man's land, a strange bipolar mix of delight and sadness compete from scene to scene which encapsulates the elusiveness of those short teenage years.
However, much like this review, the film is prone to moments of pretention. Too many Smith's tracks for my liking and too much self-involved teenage angst.
Nonetheless, worth a watch for its interesting message about the perils of growing up.
Logan Lerman is charming as the shy, socially awkward Charlie, the hero of the film who holds a deep unrequited love for Sam (Emma Watson). The story is about growing up and about the contradictions of our later teenage years as well as those mistakes that we all make in our initial romantic stumblings.
What follows is a tale of deep poignancy as Sam and Charlie feel they way around through one failed relationship to another, never quite crossing one another at the right time. What binds them both is a shared past that neither realise until late in the tale.
Around these two are the rest of the group - the charismatic Patrick (Ezra Miller) whose extreme flamboyance hides a sensitive inner self. Mae Whitman plays Mary-Elizabeth, Charlie's girlfriend, who seems destined for great things but is yet to realise her potential. All roads lead to the Ivy League for these bright young things but none of them have sufficient control over their personal lives for comfort.
In this no man's land, a strange bipolar mix of delight and sadness compete from scene to scene which encapsulates the elusiveness of those short teenage years.
However, much like this review, the film is prone to moments of pretention. Too many Smith's tracks for my liking and too much self-involved teenage angst.
Nonetheless, worth a watch for its interesting message about the perils of growing up.
Sunday 30 September 2012
'Looper' dir. Rian Johnson
Ok, so Joseph Gordon Levitt plays a hired assassin who kills other hired assassins sent back from the future when they are no longer useful to the criminal overlords of thirty years hence. Then Bruce Willis appears - Joseph Gordon Levitt's future self and part of his job as a looper is to kill his future self and what? WHAT? How does that even work?
As with any plot that involves time travel, a more than healthy dose of suspension of disbelief is required to fully enjoy the ride. Nonetheless, it is a highly enjoyable one that initially takes us on a tour of the dystopic, morally bankrupt Kansas City of 2044.
During this tour, we are presented with a rather depressing summary of the fractured, lonely existence of the average 'looper'. Joe (Levitt) is a drug addled wreck of a man blocking out the emptiness of his past with fast cars and call girls. He drifts between assignments, staying sober only long enough to perform his next execution.
His closest friend and colleague Seth (Paul Dano) shares these values until he is unfortunate enough to have to face up to 'closing his loop' - i.e. killing his future self. Upon arrival in the present, Seth's future self tells him of an even darker world in 2074 in which a criminal known as 'The Rainmaker' is bending humanity to his will and as a consequence Seth refuses to kill him. Unfortunately for Seth, letting his future self escape into the present carries a rather harsh penalty.
The following day, Bruce Willis' arrival signals that it is time for Joe to also 'close his loop'. Joe arrives prepared to deliver the fatal blow but his older self has made other plans and escapes. His reason for doing so quickly becomes apparent as he sets out to kill 'The Rainmaker' before he has a chance to grow up.
The older Joe's motives are not purely altruistic - he is also looking to preserve a future for Levitt that involves meeting the woman who will lift him out of his seedy existence. A chase ensues as the older Joe sets out to kill the three possible children who may be 'The Rainmaker', a consequence of which is that the younger Joe finds himself on a farm protecting one of these children.
This child is under the care of Sara (Emily Blunt), another victim of the supreme hedonistic culture of the city who has retreated from it to bring up her son. It soon becomes apparent that there is something different about this boy. Cid, played with tremendous energy by Pierce Gagnon, has an exceptional intellect and a precocious nature. He challenges many of Joe's long held beliefs about the world he lives in.
Sara and Cid are the only characters in the film who share any form of loving human relationship and it is interesting to note that this seems to separate them from the madness that abounds. The only other exception to this rule is the older Joe, whose selfish desire to return to his wife leads him to madness.
So, despite its brain fryingly complex subject matter, Looper has managed an interesting take on the importance of human relationships in an increasingly status driven society. It is not only a well constructed action film but a dystopic science fiction that ranks alongside the best in the genre.
As with any plot that involves time travel, a more than healthy dose of suspension of disbelief is required to fully enjoy the ride. Nonetheless, it is a highly enjoyable one that initially takes us on a tour of the dystopic, morally bankrupt Kansas City of 2044.
During this tour, we are presented with a rather depressing summary of the fractured, lonely existence of the average 'looper'. Joe (Levitt) is a drug addled wreck of a man blocking out the emptiness of his past with fast cars and call girls. He drifts between assignments, staying sober only long enough to perform his next execution.
His closest friend and colleague Seth (Paul Dano) shares these values until he is unfortunate enough to have to face up to 'closing his loop' - i.e. killing his future self. Upon arrival in the present, Seth's future self tells him of an even darker world in 2074 in which a criminal known as 'The Rainmaker' is bending humanity to his will and as a consequence Seth refuses to kill him. Unfortunately for Seth, letting his future self escape into the present carries a rather harsh penalty.
The following day, Bruce Willis' arrival signals that it is time for Joe to also 'close his loop'. Joe arrives prepared to deliver the fatal blow but his older self has made other plans and escapes. His reason for doing so quickly becomes apparent as he sets out to kill 'The Rainmaker' before he has a chance to grow up.
The older Joe's motives are not purely altruistic - he is also looking to preserve a future for Levitt that involves meeting the woman who will lift him out of his seedy existence. A chase ensues as the older Joe sets out to kill the three possible children who may be 'The Rainmaker', a consequence of which is that the younger Joe finds himself on a farm protecting one of these children.
This child is under the care of Sara (Emily Blunt), another victim of the supreme hedonistic culture of the city who has retreated from it to bring up her son. It soon becomes apparent that there is something different about this boy. Cid, played with tremendous energy by Pierce Gagnon, has an exceptional intellect and a precocious nature. He challenges many of Joe's long held beliefs about the world he lives in.
Sara and Cid are the only characters in the film who share any form of loving human relationship and it is interesting to note that this seems to separate them from the madness that abounds. The only other exception to this rule is the older Joe, whose selfish desire to return to his wife leads him to madness.
So, despite its brain fryingly complex subject matter, Looper has managed an interesting take on the importance of human relationships in an increasingly status driven society. It is not only a well constructed action film but a dystopic science fiction that ranks alongside the best in the genre.
Sunday 16 September 2012
'The Sweeney' dir. Nick Love
'Hold up, I haven't been an 'ard man in a gritty British action film in a couple of years,' I can imagine Ray Winstone saying on the set of his latest betting advert.
A few well placed calls later and here we have it. Let's face it, if they were ever going to remake 'The Sweeney' - a vaguely chauvenistic 70's TV police series with John Thaw and Dennis Waterman then Ray was always going to be the likeliest man to play the guv'na Jack Regan.
And the opening scenes are promising as Regan and his flying squad take out various armed gangs in a series of absurdly violent operations. Add to that a hard pressed commander Frank Haskins (Damian Lewis) being pushed by straight laced internal investigator Ivan Lewis (played with relish by Steven Mackintosh) and we have a recipe for a very respectable evening of entertainment.
Unfortunately, there are some elements of the plot that seem a little beyond belief such as the ongoing affair between Regan and Nancy (Hayley Attwell). Perhaps this is just a nagging doubt but it does seem that she could do a bit better than an alcoholic used up old cop in his late fifties.
Nor does it seem likely that she would be married to the aforementioned Ivan Lewis - surely the dullest police character ever created and strongly reminiscent of Dwayne T. Robinson from the original Die Hard film.
The rest of the flying squad are given little screen time with the exception of George Carter (Ben Drew) who is a converted teenage miscreant with a ridiculously expensive flat. Beyond the occasional meditation on how his new life is not so very different to his old one he is really not given that much to do.
That is, until the final act, when the plot slightly goes AWOL and Regan is put in a nasty situation by the straight laced internal investigator Ivan. At this point the usual message of these films kicks in 'he may not play by the rules but, by God, he gets results' and it plays out accordingly.
So, this ending was comforting in its familiarity but slightly frustrating for all that. If it had gone for something a little different - perhaps playing a little more strongly on the police corruption angle then it may have made a greater impact. Nonetheless, it was a solid Saturday night of entertainment and I am almost certain that I will be reviewing the sequel at some point in the not too distant future.
A few well placed calls later and here we have it. Let's face it, if they were ever going to remake 'The Sweeney' - a vaguely chauvenistic 70's TV police series with John Thaw and Dennis Waterman then Ray was always going to be the likeliest man to play the guv'na Jack Regan.
And the opening scenes are promising as Regan and his flying squad take out various armed gangs in a series of absurdly violent operations. Add to that a hard pressed commander Frank Haskins (Damian Lewis) being pushed by straight laced internal investigator Ivan Lewis (played with relish by Steven Mackintosh) and we have a recipe for a very respectable evening of entertainment.
Unfortunately, there are some elements of the plot that seem a little beyond belief such as the ongoing affair between Regan and Nancy (Hayley Attwell). Perhaps this is just a nagging doubt but it does seem that she could do a bit better than an alcoholic used up old cop in his late fifties.
Nor does it seem likely that she would be married to the aforementioned Ivan Lewis - surely the dullest police character ever created and strongly reminiscent of Dwayne T. Robinson from the original Die Hard film.
The rest of the flying squad are given little screen time with the exception of George Carter (Ben Drew) who is a converted teenage miscreant with a ridiculously expensive flat. Beyond the occasional meditation on how his new life is not so very different to his old one he is really not given that much to do.
That is, until the final act, when the plot slightly goes AWOL and Regan is put in a nasty situation by the straight laced internal investigator Ivan. At this point the usual message of these films kicks in 'he may not play by the rules but, by God, he gets results' and it plays out accordingly.
So, this ending was comforting in its familiarity but slightly frustrating for all that. If it had gone for something a little different - perhaps playing a little more strongly on the police corruption angle then it may have made a greater impact. Nonetheless, it was a solid Saturday night of entertainment and I am almost certain that I will be reviewing the sequel at some point in the not too distant future.
Thursday 23 August 2012
'Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell' by Susanna Clarke
This weighty tome - coming in at just over 1000 pages is, needless to say, a bit of a slow burner. Unlike other recent tales of the fantastic, it does not rely on creating a new world or on political allegory to get its message across. It is instead set in a credible version of Napoleonic Britain, which has long since given up on its 'magicians' achieving anything useful against the threat across the English Channel.
That is until the arrival of Gilbert Norrell in London, a reclusive individual who believes that he is the only man with the right to practice magic on behalf of the British Government. When this unchallenged position is threatened by the appearance of a young man by the name of Jonathan Strange, Norrell, acting against his usual instincts, takes him on as an apprentice.
Strange proves to be a refreshing change to Norrell. He has a young wife and seems to fit in effortlessly with the graces of London Society. Eventually, he is invited to Spain to serve under the Duke of Wellington, where he succeeds in proving the value of his magic to an awkward and uncharitable commander.
It is at this point that the vast scope of the novel seems to catch up with it and, for around the last four hundred pages, it was exceptionally difficult to follow the journeys that these characters took. The body count rose with alarming rapidity as they were disposed of for reasons that did not seem well established.
Despite being well researched and having interesting elements to it, I could not help but feel that this novel would have benefitted greatly from fewer characters and a more stringent editor. Susanna Clarke is a talented writer but this was an exhausting read which left a slight sense of disappointment on its conclusion.
Well written but hard work.
That is until the arrival of Gilbert Norrell in London, a reclusive individual who believes that he is the only man with the right to practice magic on behalf of the British Government. When this unchallenged position is threatened by the appearance of a young man by the name of Jonathan Strange, Norrell, acting against his usual instincts, takes him on as an apprentice.
Strange proves to be a refreshing change to Norrell. He has a young wife and seems to fit in effortlessly with the graces of London Society. Eventually, he is invited to Spain to serve under the Duke of Wellington, where he succeeds in proving the value of his magic to an awkward and uncharitable commander.
It is at this point that the vast scope of the novel seems to catch up with it and, for around the last four hundred pages, it was exceptionally difficult to follow the journeys that these characters took. The body count rose with alarming rapidity as they were disposed of for reasons that did not seem well established.
Despite being well researched and having interesting elements to it, I could not help but feel that this novel would have benefitted greatly from fewer characters and a more stringent editor. Susanna Clarke is a talented writer but this was an exhausting read which left a slight sense of disappointment on its conclusion.
Well written but hard work.
Sunday 29 April 2012
'Avengers Assemble' dir. Joss Whedon
It is not too difficult to imagine the reception Joss Whedon received when he pitched this film:-
Execs: Six of them, Joss?
Whedon: Yeah, six, why not?
Why not indeed? Well, given the seemingly limitless supply of superhero films, a more pressing question might be why?
Well, beyond the current trends of more is more and bigger is better and the financial motives that lie behind those sentiments, 'Avengers Assemble' does not do too bad a job of answering why it has been made. The first third of the film is somewhat confused as the each of the heroes get given perhaps one or two scenes in which to characterise themselves. It is unsurpising that as a consequence most of the film's best lines come from Robert Downey Jr's Ironman, the most interesting and well rounded of any of them.
The plot is, well, almost beyond comprehension, making occasional comments on renewable energy and allegories to a 'Terminator'-esque relationship with high technology. This technology unleashes Loki, played with glorious malevolence by Tom Hiddleston, who decides to unleash an army of aliens against Earth. His motive is a long-running brotherly disagreement with Thor (Chris Hemsworth), who when not hitting objects with a hammer, delivers grave speeches about what is coming next.
Trying to anticipate what's coming next are an organization called SHIELD, led by Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson) who gets Captain America (Chris Evans), Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson) and Ironman together for the coming fight. An unstable element is introduced to the group more for his brains than his potential brawn, Mark Ruffalo's The Hulk otherwise known as mild mannered scientist Bruce Banner. No prizes for guessing how long the 'mild mannered' section lasts.
Once the heroes get together, the inevitable massive fight scene shortly follows. Their version of the cloudbase from 'Captain Scarlet' finds itself in some serious difficulties, plagued as it is by Jeremy Renner's brainwashed Hawkeye. When Johannson makes the mistake of making The Hulk angry, defeat seems close. Fortunately, Captain America saves the day, a sequence stemming out of the conflict between Evans' simple heroism and Downey Jr's neat line in modern cynicism.
After a little more characterisation for Johannson and Renner and the inevitable 'we're having a crisis' scene in which Samuel L. Jackson gets angry, it is on to New York for the final confrontation. What follows is a fun if preposterous turn of events, the highlight of which is a duel between Loki and The Hulk. The ending, whilst equally absurd, fits into the spirit of the rest of the film neatly.
As with all ensemble hero films, this does seem to suffer from having too many main characters. Black Widow and Hawkeye seem particularly underdeveloped and some of the continuity seems a little inconsistent. How can a human character get a bloody nose in one sequence and be perfectly fine when thrown against a wall minutes later? 'Avengers Assemble' does not attempt to answer this question but perhaps it is best if it does not try. It is, after all, nothing more and nothing less than a fine example of popcorn cinema.
Execs: Six of them, Joss?
Whedon: Yeah, six, why not?
Why not indeed? Well, given the seemingly limitless supply of superhero films, a more pressing question might be why?
Well, beyond the current trends of more is more and bigger is better and the financial motives that lie behind those sentiments, 'Avengers Assemble' does not do too bad a job of answering why it has been made. The first third of the film is somewhat confused as the each of the heroes get given perhaps one or two scenes in which to characterise themselves. It is unsurpising that as a consequence most of the film's best lines come from Robert Downey Jr's Ironman, the most interesting and well rounded of any of them.
The plot is, well, almost beyond comprehension, making occasional comments on renewable energy and allegories to a 'Terminator'-esque relationship with high technology. This technology unleashes Loki, played with glorious malevolence by Tom Hiddleston, who decides to unleash an army of aliens against Earth. His motive is a long-running brotherly disagreement with Thor (Chris Hemsworth), who when not hitting objects with a hammer, delivers grave speeches about what is coming next.
Trying to anticipate what's coming next are an organization called SHIELD, led by Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson) who gets Captain America (Chris Evans), Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson) and Ironman together for the coming fight. An unstable element is introduced to the group more for his brains than his potential brawn, Mark Ruffalo's The Hulk otherwise known as mild mannered scientist Bruce Banner. No prizes for guessing how long the 'mild mannered' section lasts.
Once the heroes get together, the inevitable massive fight scene shortly follows. Their version of the cloudbase from 'Captain Scarlet' finds itself in some serious difficulties, plagued as it is by Jeremy Renner's brainwashed Hawkeye. When Johannson makes the mistake of making The Hulk angry, defeat seems close. Fortunately, Captain America saves the day, a sequence stemming out of the conflict between Evans' simple heroism and Downey Jr's neat line in modern cynicism.
After a little more characterisation for Johannson and Renner and the inevitable 'we're having a crisis' scene in which Samuel L. Jackson gets angry, it is on to New York for the final confrontation. What follows is a fun if preposterous turn of events, the highlight of which is a duel between Loki and The Hulk. The ending, whilst equally absurd, fits into the spirit of the rest of the film neatly.
As with all ensemble hero films, this does seem to suffer from having too many main characters. Black Widow and Hawkeye seem particularly underdeveloped and some of the continuity seems a little inconsistent. How can a human character get a bloody nose in one sequence and be perfectly fine when thrown against a wall minutes later? 'Avengers Assemble' does not attempt to answer this question but perhaps it is best if it does not try. It is, after all, nothing more and nothing less than a fine example of popcorn cinema.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)