FILM: The Tree of Life (6/10)

Why did I watch it?

Came across this one after seeing it mentioned in Sight & Sounds 2012 greatest film poll. Although it didn't make the final list, 16 critics voted it in their top 10 greatest films of all time. That coupled with the fact that I enjoyed another of director Terence Malick's films, The Thin Red Line, made this worth investigating.

What's it all about?

Simply put, the film largely chronicles the childhood memories of a middle-aged man Jack O'Brien (Sean Penn). Growing up in Waco, Texas, Jack is the oldest of three boys, sons of parents Brad Pitt and Jessica Chastain with contrasting views on life. Pitt is frustrated with his achievements in life and raises his sons with a firm hand, in particular Jack, as he attempts to impress upon them that life is a cruel game that must be conquered through hard work and desire. In Chastain, the boys have a mother with a carefree spirit, happy to simply be alive amongst the wonders of God. In between the present day and the retold memories, the viewer is told at the film's offset that one of the younger boys died as a young adult in military service.

Should you watch it?

The Tree of Life is without doubt the most difficult film I have ever watched. I'll admit to watching this in two sessions as I stepped away from it after the first twenty minutes or so, frustrated with the lack of narrative and religious whispering behind scenes of light flickering in the dark.

Thankfully, I returned to it later although I almost gave up again during the twenty minute sequence covering the creation of Earth and life upon it. This was like watching a nature documentary and culminating with CGI dinosaurs, I still question the necessity for this sequence. To me it felt completely detached from the 'the tree of life' that was the telling of the life of Jack.

"Do not speak unless you have something significant to say"

The film is edited to within an inch of it's life as some fantastically beautiful shots and imagery are interspersed between the scenes of the family's relationship. I believe the only person who will truly appreciate and understand the intricacy of the film's editing and imagery is Malick himself.

A corner is turned once the philosophy of evolution is put to one side and the narrative (although still unconventional) begins. Pitt, Chastain and Hunter McCracken (young Jack) give truly excellent performances. As the oldest of three brothers myself, I related to the boys innocently running amok in the neighbourhood, usually going too far in their youthful exuberance and daring (and usually the younger brother paying the price!). I really enjoyed this section of the story, as Jack became troublesome and his relationship with his father began to breakdown to the point of him considering dropping a car on his head. Disappointingly though, for me the ending was as unrewarding as the film's start leaving my enjoyment of The Tree of Life a real quandary.

FILM: The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (8/10)

Why did I watch it?

I am a massive fan of Steig Larsson's series of books so I was keen to see Hollywood's take on the story. I've haven't seen the original Swedish versions of the films yet.

What's it all about?

Based on the book of the same name and set in Sweden, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo tells the story of disgraced journalist Mikael Blomkvist (Daniel Craig) and extrovert freelance researcher Lisbeth Salander (Rooney Mara) investigate the disappearance of teenager Harriet Vanger decades earlier. As the pair attempt to hunt down the murderer they become entangled in an estranged family with shady history.

She used to be such a nice girl

Should you watch it?
TGWTDT is essentially a cold case whodunit but what sets the story apart is not the complexity of the wealthy Vanger family and their whereabouts on that day but the characters investigating the mystery. Blomkvist is fresh from losing a libel lawsuit and accepts the case as a sabbatical from work while Lisbeth Salander is now probably one of the most iconic female characters of recent times. A gifted researcher and computer hacker under state guardianship due to a chequered adolescence, Salander only enters the story in its main sense half way through. The first half introduces her character's issues, her initiative and resolve in the face of difficulty. Despite being a whodunit, as the title suggests, the story is really about Salander.

I enjoyed the US film version and thought David Fincher managed to do the book justice squeezing just enough detail from the book into the two and half hours without compromising some of the more extreme scenes.  I was concerned that some of the complexity of the various generations of the Vanger family would be lost in the translation from book to film but Fincher managed to explain this carefully enough with visual aids for it to get across to the audience.

The faults with the film are similar to the book in that the postscript ending seems just as tagged onto the end but this is a small gripe and it rests with Larsson's decision to set up the next instalment here. 

Rooney Mara is excellent as Salander, and the production team did a great job designing her appearance true to the story.

FILM: Crazy, Stupid, Love. (7/10)

Why did I watch it?

Another Mrs Northerner special this one while we were on holiday. I hadn't even heard of this film before watching it.

What's it all about?

A romantic comedy that weaves together the romantic entanglements of several interlinked characters. To refer to Crazy Stupid Love as a love triangle would be simplifying it grossly. A love triangle dangerously perched on top of a love pyramid would be more accurate. Steve Carell is the soon to be divorced middle-aged guy with no interest in finding another fish in the sea. He meets successful ladies man Ryan Gosling who offers to help reinvent him as a ladies man himself. Meanwhile Gosling meets a girl and begins to question his own lifestyle of fast women while Carrell's young son ambitiously pines after his babysitter, who herself has eyes on a guy herself. Amongst all this, Carrell's wife Julianne Moore continues to date Kevin Bacon, the cause of the divorce.

Chat-up lines Dad-style

Should you watch it?

As rom-coms go, Crazy Stupid Love is definitely worth a watch. Steve Carell is pretty funny as always and the same can be said for the plot machinations which culminate in a hilarious farcical scene as the love triangle/pyramid collapses. It also features a pretty large A-list cast which certainly helps things along.

FILM: The Rock (7/10)

Why did I watch it?

This is one of those films that I should have seen but for no particular reason I haven't. Instead I've managed to see Con Air probably half a dozen times. 

What's it all about?

Ed Harris plays disillusioned US general Frank Hummel, who leads his rogue team of Marines to seize control of Alcatraz, taking 81 hostages in the process. Armed with biological VX missiles aimed at San Francisco, Hummel demands funds for the families of those marines who have died in deniable operations. The US governments teams up FBI chemical specialist Stanley Goodspeed (Nicolas Cage) with former SAS operative and Alcatraz inmate John Mason (Sean Connery) to save the day.

Should you watch it?

The Rock is a straight forward action film with no regrets. Bang for your buck director Michael Bay's second film delivers gun fights, car chases, explosions a plenty, all tethered to a pretty zany plot. He finds time to squeeze in some instantly recognisable shots, namely the slow motion shots of Cage getting to his feet a la Will Smith in Bad Boys.

The three leads play there characters well. Harris plays Hummel dead straight and manages to give him several dimensions. Cage is his fairly usual character, the goofy, funny, out of place hero. Connery brings some extra class to the film although he does have a few cheesy lines that would make a Bond script look Shakespearian. Producers Bruckheimer and Simpson gave soundtrack duties to Hans Zimmer, who delivers another fantastic Zimmer special.

As 1990's action films go, The Rock is up with the best of them.

FILM: The Proposal (5/10)

Why did I watch it?

Mrs Northerner suggested we watch this as it was on TV while we were away. I think this may be at least strike #2 for her being allowed to suggest films to watch.

What's it all about?

Ok, Sandra Bullock is the bitchy editor-in-chief and Ryan Reynolds is her personal assistant. Bullock's visa (she's Canadian) expires and in order to protect her job she reveals to her employers that her and Reynolds are engaged and soon to be married. Obviously they aren't but Reynolds reluctantly agrees providing he is made editor and his book is published. Cue fun and games as Bullock meets Reynolds family and the couple try to avoid prison by tricking an inquisitive immigration agent.

Should you watch it?

The happy couple

It was sadly predictable how predictable the plot turned out to be. I don't think I'm giving anything away by saying that spoiler alert they don't get on, then get on, then fall out at the last minute before making up. The only unknown is knowing how close to the end the last minute falling out occurs. I've had more unpredictable trips to the bathroom.

Despite the plot, Reynolds and Bullock do have a genuine chemistry, are capable comedic performers and turn in decent performances within the constrains of the plot. The script's immense sarcasm and the pair's forced affection for each other, despite their contempt, can actually be pretty funny to watch.

FILM: The Wrestler (9/10)

Why did I watch it?

Recorded this one a while ago as well, following its high praise on release. Oh and I used to like wrestling.

What's it all about?

Mickey Rourke is Randy 'The Ram' Robinson, an American wrestler popular in the late 80's, desperately clinging to his days of glory in the present day and scraping a living in doing so. Robinson puts his tired and worn body through the ringer against younger athletes in local independent matches  fought in front of small crowds. As he struggles to pay his rent, he manages to save funds for dances from his favourite dancer Marisa Tomei at his local strip joint and makes efforts to reconcile with his estranged daughter.

Should you watch it?

The Wrestler is a brilliant character piece from director Darren Aronofsky. Rourke is fantastic as the battered and troubled veteran unable to call time on his career. His Oscar nomination was fully deserved and on the back of that performance I feel sorry he didn't come out as winner (note - I haven't seen Sean Penn in Milk). Marisa Tomei is also brilliant as the similarly troubled stripper Robinson finds solace with.

Randy 'The Ram 'Robinson

The film is similar to Aronofsky's follow-up Black Swan, both being deep character studies of troubled leads. The film is heavy in shots from behind Rourke as he walks down corridors towards the ring or towards the deli counter at work and as well resembling the coverage of a boxer or rock band approaching the arena it gives the film the feeling of a documentary. You can almost imagine Louis Theroux providing some narration. Robinson's longing for the good times is complimented by the 80's guitar heavy score (Slash played the guitar for the score).

The Wrestler  is the emotional ride of veteran who doesn't know how live for anything else and ultimately the ending doesn't matter as he climbs the turn-buckle for his 'finisher' as he has found peace back in the ring again.

FILM: American History X (9/10)

Why did I watch it?

Recorded this one a while ago while it was on as it's always been one of those films I've wanted to watch, purely based on its controversy, but somehow never got around to.

What's it all about?

Norton beefed up for the role 

A story of two LA neo-nazi brothers, American History X stars Edward Norton and Edward Furlong as Derek and Danny Vinyard. Angry with perceived injustices against the white population of Venice Beach and the nation as a whole on top of the murder of their father by a black drug dealer, the pair embrace the teachings of a local supremist. The film alternates between the present day and flashbacks chronicling the relationship of the pair as the older brother, Derek (Norton), gets drawn into trouble with the gang and later tries to prevent his younger brother from making the same mistakes as him.

Should you watch it?

Violent, powerful and controversial, American History X is a hard-hitting drama dealing with a difficult but realistic subject and at times can be hard to watch. Obviously bearing in mind the subject matter, the script is unpleasant at times but the decision to give both characters a high degree of intelligence was a smart one as it at least allows them to put forward their argument in a reasonably articulate manner.
Edward Norton is absolutely excellent as the older brother before and after his run in with the law and totally deserved his Oscar nomination. Furlong also deserves credit for his performance and it's disappointing that he didn't go on to better things from this. The black and white older footage, when Norton is at his angriest, adds to the powerful nature of the film and was a masterstroke. Norton's angry, shaven-headed, white and Nazi-tattoo clad torso in black and white is, from a cinematic perspective, a pretty powerful and controversial image.

FILM: Moonrise Kingdom (9/10)

Why did I watch it?

I've never seen a Wes Anderson film before. There, I said it. The trailers for Moonrise Kingdom made it look like a quirky, fun film with a great cast and worth a look.

What's it all about?

Set on a peacefully quiet island off the coast of New England, two children, having only met once, set their pen-mail devised plan to runaway together into action. This leads to the islands eccentric inhabitants launching their own search and rescue mission to track down the wayward pair before a storm closes in.   

Should you watch it?

Quite simply, yes. Moonrise Kingdom is beautifully shot, Anderson uses rich warm colours throughout and the film has such a retro feel to go with the 60s setting. The opening credits sequence was spellbinding and the film rarely lets go from there onwards. The cast is fantastic,  the two young leads give performances that belies their youth and are supported by a brilliantly deadpan Bruce Willis character, Edward Norton, Billy Murray, Tilda Swinton and cameos from Jason Schwartzmann and Harvey Keitel.

The budding runaways

The screenplay is charming yet not without some serious undertones, in particular each child's motives for leaving but the film's offbeat humour (Swinton plays a character literally called 'Social Services') never lets the mood fall away from any other than pure adventure. Make no doubt that the children's naivety and innocence are the highlight of the film. The moment they meet up, Sam orders an inventory their equipment which includes an air rifle, a cat and six books before handing over some flowers to his young love. He later warns Suzy that he may wet the bed inside their tent. I'm reluctant to say anything further so as not to spoil the film for others.

Kingdom is supported by a score of classical music that fits perfectly with the eccentric nature of most characters and the old feel of the film.

A must see, and not just for Wes Anderson fans (as I mentioned I hadn't seen any of his films beforehand).

FILM: Rendition (6/10)

Why did I watch it?

I remember thinking that this film looked worth watching when it came out at the cinema. I was interested in the concept of extraordinary rendition and how it could happen. Anyway, five years later I finally got around to watching it.

What's it all about?

As the title suggests, its all about the controversial CIA practice of moving terror suspects to countries other than the US for interrogation purposes. Jake Gyllenhaal plays a CIA analyst caught up in the rendition of an Egyptian American chemical engineer (same profession as me!) Anwar to a North African country and the hands of the local police chief. At the same time Reese Witherspoon plays the suspects wife, desperately trying to track down her husbands whereabouts after he seemingly disappears during a flight home. Meryl Streep turns up as Gyllenhaal's boss.

Should you watch it?
Inevitably Rendition poses some questions about the justification of rendition and its breaching of human rights. The film doesn't really answer them either way, especially considering the ambiguous ending. If the screenplay was intending to make a specific point I think I missed it, although if it was being delivered by Gyllenhaal that is hardly surprising. His character is tepid, and that's being kind and seems pretty nonplussed with everything from the off so it was difficult to notice any change in his character after witnessing rendition first hand.
At the other end, Witherspoon fares slightly better with her performance as the desperate wife. Screeching aside, it was beneficial to see the impact of rendition and difficulties in finding information from the point of view of the family.
To give the screenplay some credit, the intertwining stories of the rendition and the local terrorist cell does create some tension which moves the film along.

A fairly run of the mill political thriller with some intriguing plotlines.

FILM: Prometheus (8/10)

Why did I watch it?

Being a big fan of the Alien franchise I was excited about seeing this film as soon as I heard it was being developed.

What's it all about?

Prometheus sees director Ridley Scott return to the universe of his sci-if phenomenon Alien in the form of a loose prequel. A team of scientists searching for the beginning of human life follow directions they believe are from their creators and funded by the Weyland Corp. head to a far away unknown planet. Here they find clues not only to the origins of human life but the origins of a familiar foe.

Should you watch it?

Prometheus is full of familiar characteristics from the Alien franchise, androids, stasis, mysterious eggs and corrosive blood. Although unoriginal, these facets are not unwelcome and made me feel right back at home within the Alien world.
The script deals with questions of creationism and occasions is a little pretentious and self-serving but this sets it apart from being a straight-up sci-fi horror. Speaking of questions, the script also leaves plenty unanswered at the end, either intentionally (and hopefully) for a sequel or through failings in the writing. I expected no less with one of the brains behind Lost involved in the writing. The acting is great, Michael Fassbender gives a dead pan cold peformance as he android David and others including Idris Elba, Noomi Rapace and Charlize Theron deliver as well.

Didn't they learn anything from Alien?

I have seen plenty of negative reviews for Prometheus and I disagree with the majority, although admitedly the unanswered questions are a bug I seem to bare more than others. I really enjoyed the film, lets just be happy we are seeing more of Ridley Scott's Alien mythology.

FILM: The Fifth Element (8/10)

Why did I watch it?

A friend gave me this to watch after I had watched Blade Runner and mentioned that having previously seen neither, I had always mixed the two up. Problem solved.

What's it all about?

Set in the future, Bruce Willis stars as a taxi driver (of the flying variety, naturally) accidentally caught up in an almost farcical battle to save the Earth from evil. Faced with a thousand year old prophecy coming true, Korben Dallas (Willis) helps scared and almost-nude alien Milla Jovovich defend Earth by racing evil magnate Gary Oldman in the search for four prophetical elements.

Should you watch it?
Don't let the premise put you off. Yes it's surreal and almost ridiculous but Luc Besson's near fantastical sci-fi adventure is an enjoyable ride with bags of style to spare. Production design was handled by a pair of French comic book creators and costumes were designed by Jean Paul Gaultier.

Willis and Jovovich are instantly likeable as the leads, Oldman plays the wonderfully over the top enemy and Chris Tucker injects another dose of craziness every time he appears as the extravagant motor-mouth radio host Ruby Rhod. Besson creates some great scenes, visually, Leeloo (Jovovich) going out onto a window ledge and giving the audience their first view of the futuristic city and musically, the Diva's opera edited together with an action sequence.

Enjoyable and amusing sci-fi romp with a great cast.

BOOK: Check the Technique: Liner Notes for Hip-Hop Junkies, Brian Coleman (7/10)

Why did I read it?

As more than a casual fan of hip-hop, especially of hip-hop from days gone by, this book was essential reading once I stumbled across it.

What's it all about?
Brian Coleman interviewed the artists responsible for some of the most influential hip-hop albums of all time. He presents the interviews as each artist discusses the creation of their work from the birth of the act through to the recording of the particular album. The list includes the likes of Big Daddy Kane, Ice-T, De La Soul, The Beastie Boys and Too $hort. Coleman then presents a track by track breakdown of each particular album giving the artists the opportunity to explain the inspiration behind each track.  

Should you read it?

This book is not for casual readers, only interested music fans will enjoy the detailed descriptions of the recording processes and instruments used in producing these 'immortal rap albums'. I highlight this quote as every reader will have an opinion on the albums selected and I have to admit my interest waned during the chapters for artists I had very limited or no knowledge of. I understand that Coleman completed fifty interviews yet only thirty-six were included and I think the book would have been benefited from being a more definitive collection with these included. The albums selected predominantly range from the late 80s to the early 90s with a few exceptions. Again some would argue that this is the 'golden era' of hip-hop but there are many great albums from outside of that period, in particular from the West Coast.

Grumbles over the selection aside, the book gives a fascinating first hand insight into the creative side of these artists and their recording processes. What is interesting is how diverse the production of each album was at the time. The development of each album was unique from the recording of demos and earning of record deals through to the production and sampling processes used by the various artists and producers.

BOOK: Homicide: A Year On The Killing Streets, David Simon (10/10)

Why did I read it?

In my eyes author David Simon is nothing short of a genius. Creator and head writer of The Wire, co-creator of Treme and producer and writer of Generation Kill, the man is responsible for some fantastic TV. I know of his pre-The Wire shows but have not seen any episodes of Homicide or The Corner so decided this would be a good opportunity to look at some of his work from his previous career as a police reporter. 

What's it all about?

Simon took a year out of his career as a police reporter for The Baltimore Sun to spend 1988 chronicling the day to day activities of the Baltimore Police Department's Homicide Unit. A Year On The Killing Streets is the result of that year and Simon gives a fly on the wall perspective of a year in the life of  a typical Baltimore homicide detective, and it ain't pretty.

Should you read it?

This book is to crime literature what The Wire is to police dramas. A massive dose of honest reality. 1988 was a particularly tough year for the Baltimore homicide unit and as Simon recounts the details of the more prominent cases of the year alongside the working mantra of a homicide detective, its obvious that the CSI portrayal of homicide detectives is completely false. In 1988, DNA samples do not exist, the majority of cases are drug related killings unlikely to have a single willing witness and at one point in the year the clearance rate falls below 40%.

Simon says in the epilogue that very little amendments were made to his final manuscript at the request of the BPD and this shows as murder details, procedures, department politics, names and conversations are recounted honestly. The detectives have largely become immune to the death around them and make jokes of fresh corpses as well as the luck of other detectives in catching a stone cold 'whodunit' over a 'dunker'. The broad range of personalities in the department also help Simon to give a fascinating insight into the workings of an overworked homicide department. The birth of characters used by Simon years later in The Wire is evident, literally in the case of Jay Landsman, as are several conversations and references to special details and wire taps.

A really eye-opening insight into the unglamourous life of a Baltimore homicide detective and the staggering crime levels of late eighties Baltimore. A must for any fan of police TV dramas, in particular The Wire.

BOOK: The Fifth Witness, Michael Connolly (5/10)

Why did I read it?

A friend gave me this to read after I enjoyed reading (and watching the film version of) Michael Connolly's earlier Michael Haller story The Lincoln Lawyer.

What's it all about?

Michael Haller, a regular character in Connolly's novels is an LA criminal defence attorney working on the defence for victims of foreclosure at the offset of the story due to the abundance of work and low amount of work required on his part for early payment. His legal work reverts to type when one of his foreclosure clients is charged with murdering one of her banks employees.

Should you read it?

Haller appears in two novels in between The Lincoln Lawyer and The Fifth Witness which I have not read but it is clear that Haller did not learn the lessons of Lincoln Lawyer, in fact its as if that the events of that book never happened although they are occasionally referenced in Witness. At the end of Lincoln Lawyer Haller seems to regret not ever caring if a client is actually innocent or guilty and regrets cashing in in the misfortune of others. However, in Witness he is milking the foreclosure market by doing the bare minimal to prolong foreclosures knowing full well he is only delaying the inevitable. He also states on several occasions that he does not care if his client is innocent or not it's just his job to get them off. While I agree with this principle, it shows an inconsistency in the character that is difficult to get past. Another example is Haller's music preference, in Lawyer he is interested in hip-hop and this is referenced several times while in Witness several songs are referred to but not one is of the hip-hop variety.

Rant not quite over yet, Haller's case attracts the attention of Hollywood and he meets with a producer to discuss rights. Connolly makes a cardinal sin by having the producer suggest that Matthew McConaughey play Haller should he land the rights. As we all know, McConaughey actually did play Haller in Lawyer, which came out just before Witness. This line was almost too cheesy to digest, I already picture McConaughey as Haller when reading the picture without needing this misguided attempt to be clever or even worse funny.

Onto the story which is actually half decent. The court scenes take up the majority of the book as Haller struggles to defend his client against a clever opponent armed with damning evidence all the time while having his case undermined by his client and outside sources. The court scenes are exciting and made the book a real page turner. Unfortunately they run out of steam at the end as Haller delivers his coup de grace court tactics. Also, following the court verdict the true ending of the book feels contrived and tagged on for closure.

A reasonable read let down in places and not as enjoyable as The Lincoln Lawyer.

FILM: The Hunger Games (6/10)

Why did I watch it?
I had never heard of the Hunger Games series prior to the film coming out, proof if needed that I'm obviously not a 'young adult anymore! the other half came in with this the other day so I gave into the hype and gave it a go.

What's it all about?
Set in a fictional American dystopian future, a new nation called Panem is divided into 12 distinct districts and controlled by the powerful and rich Capitol. As punishment for an uprising some years before, The Capitol organise a yearly competition known as the Hunger Games where each district must send 2 competitors, one boy and one girl between the ages of 12 and 18, known as tributes. The children are left to fight until the death until only one survives and is declared the champion.  

Should you watch it?
I was largely non-fussed by The Hunger Games. Having not read the books I've no idea how the adaptation compares but as a standalone film it wasn't bad but it wasn't too great either. The story borrows elements from The Truman Show, Running Man and Blade Runner among others. I should plead ignorance in having not yet seen Battle Royale, but I'm aware that the plot is remarkably similar. The point being that the plot is not awfully original.

The directing and editing in the districts did not work for me. The shaky camera work and chop editing might have been selected to create a sense of disorganisation and panic in the districts during tribute selection but I found it too much. Another gripe I had was the use of flashbacks by Gary Ross. Flashbacks of unseen footage provide the viewer with an opportunity to see what has previously occured and can be plot aids but why did Ross choose to show flashbacks of scenes we had already seen, one in particular several times over. I clearly missed the importance of the scene.

I felt the film was dumbed down in places, definitely in terms of violence, which I can understand with this being a Hollywood production with children involved but also with some of the script. A prime example being at the end when the game organiser announces that the rules are being changed spontaneously again, It is so obvious what the rule change is going to be but yet the characters are made to listen to the full announcement with a few more seconds afterwards to digest the rammifications.

There are decent performances from Jennifer Lawrence and Woody Allen so its far from all bad.

TV: The Wire (S1) (10/10)

Why did I watch it?
I usually only review films or shows I've not seen before but in the case of The Wire I had to make an exception. I've already seen the first two seasons and having bought the box-set sometime ago, it was time to go back to the start and enjoy it all over again.

What's it all about?
For those not in the know, The Wire is set in Baltimore and each season focuses on a different area of life in the city. The first season revolves around a hastily put together police detail tasked with investigating the little known Barksdale drug empire. Led by Lieutenant Daniels (Lance Reddick) and the dedicated Jimmy McNulty (Dominic West), the detail are under pressure to make a minimal amount of low level charges quickly, however work is slow and painstaking difficult and the detail fight their superiors for more time to build a case using electronic surveillance.

Should you watch it?
The great thing about The Wire is....well, everything. The scope of the show is immense, the characters range from judges, DAs, police chiefs and detectives on one side to those encompassing the whole structure of Anton Barksdale's gang, from right hand men and enforcers to low level dealers. Each is involved in the story as it plays out slowly piece by piece. The line between good and bad is blurred at best, the police force is riddled with incompetence and those only concerned with self-preservation while the dealers are a well-organised mixture of cold-blooded killers and morally conflicted teens who know no other way of life. Not to mention Omar (Michael K. Williams), the gay stick-up man who terrorises local drug stash houses.

Who's listening?

The Wire is the ultimate definition of a slow-burner but with hour long episodes the plot begins to unravel soon enough and rewards are plenty for those patient during the initial episodes. Fans of David Simon's other works like Treme will have no problem adapting to the pace.

Did I mention that the acting, script and music are also top notch? Best line..."If you come at the king, you best not miss".

I am a huge fan of both The Soprano's and The Shield, and the first season of The Wire comes very close if not better than the best moments of these two. It deserves all the credit it receives and more. 

FILM: Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (6/10)

Why did I watch it?
My other half came home from the shop with this the other day. I was looked forward to watching it mainly because of the fantastic British cast, Oscar nominations for adapted screenplay and best actor and the fact that John Le Carre's book has long been on my list of books to read.

What's it all about?
Tinker Tailor Solider Spy is the first feature length film adaptation of John Le Carre's well respected spy novel of the same name. Set in the early 70's, in the midst of the Cold War, the film follows retired spy George Smiley (Gary Oldman) as he is tasked with uncovering a suspected mole in the British spy fraternity known as 'the Circus'.

Should you watch it?
Following the press the film received and with the ensemble British cast (Oldman, Hardy, Firth, Hurt, Cumberbatch)  I had high expectations for it. I'm sad to say the film fell somewhat short. Although a spy film, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy is the complete polar opposite to Britain's most famous member of Her Majesty's Secret Service. Given what James Bond gets up to, it is therefore more than likely a far more realistic take on the world of government intelligence, in particular considering the era. This was not a problem for me, I love realism in stories but Tinker is too slow, too deliberate and too ponderous.

Spying 70's style - glasses, coats, tweed and briefcases

Granted that the standard of acting is high, as you would expect from the cast and Gary Oldman is captivating with his quiet and understated performance as Smiley. The production also deserves credit and these two pluses carry the film a long way.

I'm sure that a lot of the detail of the book could not be squeezed into a two hour adaptation. The film is a slow-burner, which is usually my favourite type of story, but once the final act arrives it lacks any really punch and I could not recall any twist or even being led in any particular direction with my suspicions. Not what I would expect from a 'thriller'.

Worth watching to see the all round strong acting performances and production but I will definitely be reading the book in the hope it delivers a stronger story.

BOOK: Life of Pi, Yann Martel (9/10)

Life of Pi - despite appearances not a children's book!

Why did I read it?
I was really impressed by the trailer for the upcoming Ang Lee film adaptation and realising it was based on a best-selling novel decided to borrow the book from a friend. I'm never sure which is the best way round to read book or watch adaptations but there is no going back now.

What's it all about?
Life of Pi is a fantasy adventure about an Indian teenager named Pi, who finds himself the sole survivor of a shipwreck on-board a lifeboat with a Bengal tiger, a chimpanzee, a zebra and a hyena for company. It sounds surreal but the first half of the book describes a credible back story. Pi's father is a zoo-keeper and the family decide to sell the zoo and relocate to Canada, hence the voyage across the Pacific with a ship full of dangerous animals. 

Should you read it?

The upcoming film poster

The book takes its time during the first half to set the scene with the tale of Pi's upbringing at an Indian zoo, his experiences with animals and also his take on spirituality but once his ordeal starts its clear why Martel dedicates so much print to the back story.

In terms of Pi's detailed account of his practical approach to survival the story is similar to the real life survival of Aaron Ralston in 127 Hours (minus the tiger).

A word of warning, Martel doesn't hold back in graphically depicting the demise of the boat's occupants and I'm not normally affected by violence in films but when related to animals, in particular during a week when my cat was badly hurt, it was almost too much to take.

The book is a fascinating combination of religion and animal psychology and a harrowing tale of survival at all costs that I couldn't put down. I have very high hopes for the film.

FILM: Apollo 18 (6/10)

Why did I watch it?
Being a bit of a sci-fi and closet horror fan, I was suckered in by the trailer and the interesting premise of a disastrous secret moon landing ending the NASA Apollo missions.

What's it all about?
Apollo 18 is a found-footage type film marketed as being made up of footage recovered from a top secret NASA moon landing in 1974. The Apollo 18 mission is cancelled publicly, however the mission secretly still takes place under stewardship of the Department of Defence. One astronaut stays in orbit while the other two land on the moon and begin their mission of deploying detectors to monitor Soviet activity.

Should you watch it?
First of all, Apollo 18 owes a lot to other found-footage films like Blair Witch and Cloverfield. One difference however, is that the events are shown from a variety of cameras, handheld, inside the lunar module and from cameras on the outside of the module. The editing is very choppy and often switches between the various cameras as you imagine a security guard would. While this never gives the audience a chance to rest as you find yourself scoping out all the shots for any movement it becomes tiresome and interrupting. Coupled with the 'interference' to the footage and the grainy nature of some the shots, its all a bit too realistic but difficult to watch. The same applies to majority of the dialogue, radio transmissions are authentic but not employed with the viewer in mind.

The director creates suspense on occasions by using the vast and isolated yet claustrophobic setting of the moon and also the cramped safety of the lunar module coupled with a cabin fever mentality. I won't deny that on occasions the film succeeded in building uneasiness and made me jump a few times. The technique of using intermittent light flashes to illuminate pitch black environments, in Apollo 18's case moon craters, has been used previously in Saw and is not employed anywhere near as well here.

The main thought I had following the film's ending, which I won't spoil, is how on Earth (no pun intended) was the footage found? Based on this it had me thinking, was the found-footage approach really necessary? Did cost negate a traditional approach? Films like Alien prove that suspenseful sci-fi horrors work minus the novelty.

Will appeal far more to horror genre fans than traditional sci-fi fans.

FILM: Son of Rambow (7/10)

Why did I watch it?
I saw a few scenes from this film a while back on TV and found them light hearted and amusing so asked to borrow it on DVD from a friend.


What's it all about?
Son of Rambow tells the story of two young boys growing up in the 80's, William and Lee, who become firm friends while making a Rambo-inspired home movie full of self-performed stunts and childish violence. The boys are polar opposites at first, William's family belong to a strict and traditional religious brethren, so strict that William is not even allowed to watch TV for documentaries at school, while Lee is the school's worst behaved child. Despite their differences, the pair become friends by chance and both appreciate each others company, Lee's renegade behaviour gives William experiences outside of the brethren (perhaps none more so than watching Rambo: First Blood) while Lee finds a kindred spirit to overcome his loneliness at home.

Should you watch it?
Creating a film about a pair of schoolchildren's recreation of Rambo certainly scores points for originality. As I mentioned before, the light hearted and amusing in places and would be suitable for adults and children alike. The young actors Bill Milner and Will Poulter are excellent and are supported well by a small cast.
The writers take inspiration from a range of films, not just Rambo, with the scarecrow in the field and French exchange student Didier coolly lighting his cigarette in church coming to mind. As a throwback to the 80's the film is excellent, catchphrases, clothes and music are all spot on. Just like J.J Abrams recent Super 8, hopefully Rambow will inspire a generation of young filmmakers.
Son of Rambow is a quirky and original British comedy-drama, which suffers from being a little too sweet in places towards the end but more than makes up for it with great acting and humorous moments.

FILM: Blade Runner (8/10)

Ridley Scott's 1982 film Blade Runner is an adaptation of Hollywood favourite Philip K. Dick's novel Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?. Set in a futuristic 2019 Los Angeles, the humans remaining on Earth populate a poisoned planet. Scott and his special effects team created a sprawling, multi-cultural, dark and dystopian metropolis dense with towering skyscrapers in between which flying police cars patrol. The setting of the film is visionary and Dick and Scott deserve all the praise they have received for it.

The soundtrack is provided by Vangelis (Chariots of Fire) and provides the perfect backdrop to the gloomy futuristic landscape Scott creates.

Technology has allowed the fictional Tyrell Corporation to develop organic androids, known as replicants, for use as slaves in off-world colonies. Outlawed on Earth, Harrison Ford plays Deckard, a retired replicant hunter (known as a blade runner) tasked with tracking and 'retiring' a group of rogue replicants who have returned to Earth. The replicants are lead by Rutger Hauer's intelligent and villainous Roy Barry, with the intent of forcing Tyrell to modify the replicants and extended their lifespan. 


Ford plays the burnt out, gritty drunkard Deckard with the grumpiness of Han Solo but thankfully with none of the sarcasm or cheesy lines. Hauer is excellent as he becomes scarily unhinged and seemingly indestructible towards the film's climax. Sean Young plays an experimental female replicant, designed with memories with the belief that she is actually human, with whom Deckard falls for.

I must be honest that with this being the first time I have watched the film, I completely missed the plot suggestions that Deckard himself may be a replicant so maybe I need to re-watch the film from this point of view.

TV: Borgen (S1) (7/10)

Following on from the successful Forbrydelsen (adapted as The Killing in the US), Danish TV produced another well-received (2012 BAFTA for Best International Series) series in the form of Borgen. Set in the home of the Danish government, the ten parter follows new Prime Minister Birgitte Nyborg through her first year in office from election to the opening of parliament.

The series follow three main characters, Prime Minister Nyborg, her spin doctor Kasper Juul and his ex-girlfriend and political news anchor Katrine Fonsmark. The writing is sincere and each episode covers a crisis of some sorts for Nyborg's infant government be it CIA landings on Danish territory, morally complicated extraditions or ministerial scandals. The political drama takes place alongside the drama of each character's home life, in particular Nyborgs. This helps to ground all the characters and is equally as enjoyable as the politics.

I haven't seen The West Wing so I can't compare the two but good acting and strong writing make this series a success and I am sceptical at the news that a US adaptation may be in the works. I'm not sure that the story is transferable to a two-party system but we'll see. I look forward to watching the next series.

TV: Veep (S1) (8/10)

After the success of The Thick of It and the American cross-over film In the Loop, Armando Iannucci delivers what is an all-American take on his razor sharp political satire in Veep.

Set in the Vice-President Selina Myers' office, the series deals with her struggles to make her mark on the administration from what is a position of power in name only, similar to Nick Clegg being Deputy Prime Minister. The show features all the incompetent bumbling characters you would expect and has a fantastic script to match.

Some might call the acerbic put-downs and head-butting crude and maybe its just my sense of humour but when somebody says "that this bill is a f*cking disgrace and I'm going to see to it personally that it gets chewed up like a dead prostitute in a wood chipper" I laugh. Sue me. There are some fantastic lines in the script, often from the Veep herself.

It's not just all swearing and school ground teasing though, the episode plots are credible and well thought through and give ample opportunity for the Veep and her staff to screw up at every single turn. That said some episodes are stronger than others. All the characters are well played and the acting is excellent. 

Overall, a really strong first season and I'm pleased to see it renewed for another.

BOOK: Blood Meridian, Cormac McCarthy (9/10)

After enjoying the adaptations of Cormac McCarthy's No Country for Old Men and The Road I decided I would give some of the source material a try. Blood Meridian is considered one of the Great American contemporary novels and tells the story of an anonymous teenager referred to only as 'the kid'.

Set in the mid 19th century on the US-Mexican border, the story really begins after the kid joins a gang of undesirable bounty hunters as they sweep through Mexico hunting Native American Indians, paid by Mexican officials per scalp they take. The story is unflinchingly violent throughout as the gang of scalp hunters begin to stray from their objective and commit terrible atrocities in the pursuit of money or pleasure. This includes killing peaceful Indians and Mexicans alike, scalping children, drowning dogs, running a cattle train off a cliff and culminating in the violent commandeering of a ferry crossing at Yuma for financial gain. Wanted by officials on both side of the border, their behaviour eventually catches up with them.

Although part of the gang, the kid is one of the more likeable members, he never appears to scalp anyone and seems to be part of the gang not through choice but simply because that's where he ended up. This is more obvious when you consider the motivations of the gangs leaders, Glanton and Judge Holden. Out for profit or the lust of war, these two are responsible for the gangs moral compass completely falling apart.

Judge Holden is one of the most fascinating characters I have come across in literature. He is described as a giant, almost seven feet tall, with not a hair on his body. He is clearly the most intelligent character in the story and carries around a book in which he documents all manner of wildlife and nature encountered on travels stating to one man that 'that which exists without my knowledge exists without my consent'. Despite being an educated man, the judge has extremely violent beliefs, something he tries to explain to his lesser gang members on several occasions. This confliction of size, science and violence captured my intrigue from the offset. The judge's relationship with the kid is a key theme of the story. The judge appears to almost want to make the kid a protege, however late on realises that the kid is not of the same mindset as him, stating that 'some bears dance and some bears don't'. The book's ending is ambiguous and allows the reader some imagination in considering the judges actions in the final act.

McCarthy's illustration of the great lawless American west is fantastic. He provides vivid depictions of the barren landscape, types of vegetation and ghost towns. Overall I think I enjoyed the story and characters more than the actual reading of the book, if that makes sense, largely due to McCarthy's writing style.

FILM: Captain America: The First Avenger (6/10)

So after Iron Man, Hulk and Thor, last but not least it was Captain America's turn to make his big screen début as part of the Avengers development.

The First Avenger spends the first half the film covering the origin story of the Captain, which from an previously uninformed point of view was something I greatly appreciated.

With almost the majority of the action set during WWII, the film is similar to a war movie, especially once the Captain recruits his band of soldiers who then spend their time destroying Nazi science labs at ease. Think of Inglorious Bastards meets Band of Brothers but without the Tarantino violence and humour and the epicness and sincerity of the mini-series. The score also sounds familiar when heard in a war setting.

Chris Evans is successful as Captain America and holds up to the pressures of a leading man. He plays the superhero with the right amount of patriotism and conscience without being overbearing. However, Hugo Weaving's Red Skull was a disappointment.

As an origin story First Avenger is solid and the retro setting is hugely original for a superhero movie, however as a general action film, I felt that the plot, mainly the threat of the Red Skull, and the action sequences were not as strong as they could have been. America simply seems to clout everyone he meets with his shield before running onto the next, there is little variation in his tactics or in the challenges he faces.

FILM: Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans (7/10)

To say Nicolas Cage is not my favourite actor would be an understatement. That said films like Con Air are a guilty pleasure of mine. Cage stars in Werner Herzog's 2009 film Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans. I haven't seen the 1992 film of the same name so I'm coming at this film from an original standpoint.

Cage is Terrence McDonaugh, a lieutenant in the New Orleans police department with an ailing back, earned saving a prisoner during the Katrina floods, that has lead to a growing drug and gambling addiction. The story revolves around a murder investigation, however, the police work is only ever a long second to McDonaugh's spiral out of control. To say the wheels fall off as the story progresses would suggest they were even on in the first place. Cage is fantastic as the reckless, dishevelled, bug-eyed and hunched over addict on the slope to despair. It is definitely by favourite performance by the guy.

Beating David Simon's Treme to the punch, post-Katrina New Orleans is an apt setting for the lawlessness and desperate nature of the film's main character.

Although McDonaugh is certainly a bad lieutenant, snorting coke in front of a teenage witness and pulling the oxygen tube out of an elderly lady's nose while interrogating and verbally abusing her, most of his meltdowns and law-breaking come in pursuit of the drugs he needs and his police work remains largely on point.

The film is maniacally amusing as McDonuagh loses control and coupled with Herzog's abstract direction and William Finkelstein's script, it almost becomes a black comedy. The stand out scene in Bad Lieutenant involves the camera cutting to two iguanas on a table (the iguanas being a hallucination of McDonaughs) where the camera stays watching McDonaugh (who stares back) and his team on a stakeout from the iguana point of view for over a minute with nothing but music playing. Surreal indeed.

The supporting cast is strong and includes Eva Mendes, Michael Shannon (Boardwalk Empire), Val Kilmer and X-Zibit but there is only one bad lieutenant.

An excellent film featuring a great performance from Nicholas Cage.

FILM: Iron Man 2 (6/10)

Robert Downey's Iron Man returns after his first film outing two years previous, with director Jon Favreau again at the helm. As with Iron Man, Favreau delivers another fun ride and allows Downey to steal the show as Tony Stark.

Downey's egotist, smarmy and arrogant but ultimately likeable Tony Stark is the film. Other characters are purely used for Downey to show off in front of, flirt with or talk over. In honesty, this becomes a little frustrating by the end of the film but it doesn't become a terminal problem because of the hidden weakness and humility Stark shows on occasions. Also, it makes a change for a superhero to be so public with his identity and arrogance.

Facing pressure from the US government on one side and the film's nemesis Whiplash on the other, Stark also struggles to cope with the ill effects of his power source and becomes isolated and irresponsible with his powers. The main antagonist is Whiplash, the son of a Russian inventor formerly employed by Stark Industries, who out of spite for the Stark family develops his own power source to rival Iron Man. The Russian factor brings about inevitably thin Cold War references but it is the idea that the US government sees Iron Man ans his technology as their property and does not wish to be dependent on Stark's alliance for protection that is the strongest plot string.

When given scenes without Downey present, the supporting characters are a mixed bunch. The introduction of Scarlett Johansson's Black Widow to the Marvel Universe is flat and the same can be said for Gywneth Paltrow, who is talked over by Downey for all of her lines. Don Cheadle plays Iron Man's sidekick James Rhodes (aka War Machine) complete with some Robin-esque cheesy lines ("Get a roof"). The positives come in the form of Mickey Rourke as Whiplash and Sam Rockwell as Justin Hammer. Rockwell injects some brilliant humour to proceedings for when you've had your fill of Downey.

The action is evenly paced, although the action sequences towards the end of the film are a little robotic, literally, as Iron Man and War Machine take on Whiplash (in a similar suit) and his army of Iron Man suited drones.

Overall, perhaps not as fresh as the original but still a better than average entry to the Marvel catalogue.