BOOK: Inherent Vice, Thomas Pynchon (6/10)

Why did I read it?

Somebody at work mentioned Thomas Pynchon to me so I decided to look up some of his work and admittedly it was the LA setting and colourful hippy front cover that attracted me to Inherent Vice out of all of Pynchon's bibliography. 

What's it all about?

Set in the late 60's LA private detective and full time stoner Doc Sportello investigates the alleged kidnapping of a property magnate and an old flame, the murder of the magnate's bodyguard and the suspicious death of a musician, all of which appear to be connected to a shady organisation called The Golden Fang and corruption within the LAPD.





  

The Good:

• Eclectic mix of characters
• Bigfoot and Doc's LAPD and PI love hate relationship
• Short and fast paced
• The 60's L.A. setting

The Bad:

• The story didn't get hold of me and I had no urgency in uncovering the mystery. When I did it seemed an anticlimax to say the least.
• The main story and the fragments of it brought by each the characters didn't seem totally cohesive in mye eyes, especially relating to Coy Harlingen.
• A few too many pages dedicated to 'trips'.

Favourite line:

'Hair and drug-use issues not withstanding, I've never thought of you as any less than professional' - Detective Bjornsen

What the world thinks:

Amazon - 4/5

goodreads - 3.64/5

Twitter -

Finished Inherent Vice today. Not sure if I loved it, or that I even got it, but it's definitely a wild trip.
— David Dougan (@DavidWDougan) November 11, 2013

FILM: The Taking of Pelham 123 (6/10)

Why did I watch it?

A few years old already, I caught this on TV recently. I would like to go on record as saying I have not seen the original film or read the book so I won't be commenting on the necessity of the remake or judging it against anything other than its own merits.

What's it all about?

Denzel Washington and John Travolta square up as good and bad guy in Tony Scott's retelling of the 1974 original film. A group of terrorists led by Ryder (Travolta) hijack a New York subway train taking it's passengers hostage for ransom. Denzel Washington plays Walter Garber, a rail control centre operator unluckily overseeing the train's operations that day.

Should you watch it?

I'm going to get straight to it, upset fans of the original and say that on the whole I quite enjoyed this film. Don't get me wrong it is definitely not without it's flaws, none more so than the hugely anti-climatic ending, cut-out bad guys (except Travolta) and terrible character writing for James Gandolfini's Mayor but up until the ending I enjoyed Tony Scott's fast paced and stylish direction and Washington's performance. The opening sequence, in which the train is hijacked, is a fantastic sequence of New York both above and below ground, framed through quickly edited long-taken blurred shots of colourful taxis and trains all played out to Jay-Z's 99 Problem's.

Travolta's role see him reprise his familiar, unhinged and over the top villain from Face/Off (as Cage) that I can cope with in reasonable doses. Unfortunately, he is given a really clichéd profanity heavy script that doesn't do the film any favours.    

The film works best when Ryder and Garber are separate and playing traditional roles of terrorist and negotiator and begins to stall when Garber leaves the office to meet up with Ryder. The less said about the film's ending the better.

FILM: Terminator Salvation (5/10)

Why did I watch it?

I recorded this about a year ago and the fact that I only just got around to watching it tells you everything about my expectations for it. In the right hands, The Terminator franchise is a brilliant story so I was willing to give the new chapter a go.

What's it all about?

Set in 2018, fifteen years after Judgement Day, in the midst of the war against machines referred to in previous Terminator instalments, Salvation follows Resistance fighter John Connor's (Christian Bale) attempts to save a young Kyle Reese (Anton Yelchin) and free humans from Skynet. Sam Worthington stars as Death Row inmate Marcus Wright, put to death in 2003 before being brought back to life by Skynet in the present.

Should you watch it?

Due to its very nature, in making a film of the post nuclear war against machines between the Resistance and Skynet, director McG was already onto a hiding to nothing. James Cameron's films featured an occasional shot of the war but were always based around a single Terminator relentlessly pursuing its targets as part of an intelligent time travel plan. By focusing on the war, what made the previous films successful is lost. Connor and Reese fight against motorbike terminators, hunter-killer planes, aerobots and giant terminator robots, proving successful against them all. To say the tension is missing would be an understatement.

Easy

Bale does his deep Batman voice thing, less forgiving here, and in places the script suffers from cheese overload in places, none more so than Connor stealing (or a lazy tribute to) Arnie's seminal line, 'I'll be back'. This was almost too much to take. Yelchin is also given some equally cheesy lines that seem out of kilter with his character's previously strong willed and determined nature.

Visually, McG does deliver some decent looking action scenes but the film doesn't have the charm of the originals. Salvation is an overblown, sledgehammer approach to the series, and as a standalone action film it would be average but as an entry into the Terminator franchise it is a weak one and one that does not need repeating.

FILM: District 9 (9/10)

Why did I watch it?

Heard good things about this after its release on DVD so felt the need to jump aboard the bandwagon. Also, its about aliens...one of my favourite topics.

What's it all about?

Thirty years prior to the action a gigantic spaceship stopped above Johannesburg. No-one knew why. The aliens, referred to as 'prawns', were removed from the ship and placed in impoverished immigration holding camps by the South African government and private military contractor MNU. Crime is high, the locals are angry, and the day comes where the aliens are to be relocated to another camp outside of Johannesburg. The film follows Wikus van de Merwe, an Afrikaner MNU employee, charged with leading the deportation. 

Should you watch it?

District 9 can be broken down into two halves, the situation and characters are introduced through a combination of documentary style interviews, both present and retrospective, and news reports. This approach serves first time director Neill Blomklamp well, as not only is it intriguing and different, but its a fairly cheap method (the films budget was only $30 million and it took in over seven times this at the box office). Following the introductory first half, the action switches to following Wikus as his troubles begin to increase.

 

Just sign here Mr Prawn



The social commentary (calling it an undertone would be to pretend it is discreet) of the film is evident and could be transferred to any group of 'outsider's in any population. The issue has been covered by many reviewers far better than I could attempt to do so I'll just leave it at that.



Blomkamp deserves credit for his unique take on the alien's arrival to Earth. So often potrayed as violent, destructive and more importantly, the dominant species, Blomkamp's aliens are food deprived, malnourished and although restless, they are successfully policed by the humans and treated as a species (or race, there goes that social commentary aspect again) with basic human rights. Consider Ridley Scott and James Cameron's Aliens being politely asked to sign a deportation order for relocation to another camp.



Keep out



The main protagonist Wikus is played by little known South African actor Sharlto Copley. Copley's performance and transformation of Wikus from a vain and smug executive to hunted, desperate and sacrificing fugitive are tremendous and he deserves the recognition for his role as actor and also producer of the short film Alive in Joburg upon which District 9 is based. I found the final act of the film, culimanting in the final scene, genuiely emotional, which considering that the previous twenty minutes had become a bit of a gunfest is credit again to Blomkamp.

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: 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: Star Trek (7/10)

In my opinion, Star Trek was never quite as cool as Star Wars and I remember some of the feature films being particularly poor. J.J Abrams does his best to equal things up by giving the much-loved franchise a much needed modern update with this 2009 reboot. 


By setting the action in the infancy of the Enterprise (a prequel to the original TV series), the writers are not only able to base the story around familiar characters but younger, more energetic versions of those seen before. No doubt slightly unpopular with Star Trek die-hards, this results in a film that will attract younger viewers to the franchise. This is summed up by the scene where Kirk is shown in bed with a scantily clad busty green alien at the academy, a scene unlikely to have appeared in any previous Star Trek film. However, Abrams gives enough props to the franchise with some finer details like the transporting CGI and sound effects and Spock using a Vulcan death grip without giving in to the clichéd catchphrases that I had expected. 


The film itself is a fast paced action-er with an enjoyable plot, and would be capable of being a decent space action film without all that being a Star Trek film brings to it. Chris Pine's Kirk is cocky but likeable and his rivalry with the young Spock is a source of some of the films funnier moments. I loved Zachary Quinto in Heroes and he is superbly cast as the legendary Spock, who finds himself confused between his Vulcan upbringing and human emotions. 


It was great to see Leonard Nimoy make more than a cameo appearance as the older Spock, but as often the case with action film villains, it was shame that Eric Bana wasn't really given much to work as Nero.

FILM: Law Abiding Citizen (7/10)

Gerard Butler and Jamie Foxx play the lead roles in Law Abiding Citizen, a brutal thriller in which a father and husband (Butler) makes an example of the legal system that wronged him.


Jamie Foxx plays the prosecutor who makes a plea deal with the man who killed Butler's wife and child. In exacting payback on an attorney for his previous decisions, the film is similar to Cape Fear but LAC actually shares more in common with Saw as Butler cleverly butchers his way through the cast.


LAC begins in an interesting manner and tries to argue the case for both flawed sides of the justice system. However, once Butler lands himself in jail and puts his plan into effect this balanced view disappears and is replaced by a violent killing spree. Butler's logic seems confused as he vehemently denies that his actions are revenge, but by killing everyone close to his case, I struggle to see what else they could be described as. Mass murder of the local justice system seems overkill for ensuring that lessons are learnt. The film will no doubt promote some discussion as to the point at which Butler's character's actions become unjustified and he transgresses from the film's hero to ruthless villain.


Butler outshines Foxx, initially as the troubled father and husband with a cause to fight before his descent into his role as psychopathic murderer.


Law Abiding Citizen had the potential to be a cat and mouse thriller with a conscience but is ultimately just a reasonably decent thriller, but one lacking the clever twists and intelligent ending of Saw.

FILM: Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (5/10)

Bloated and excessive sequel from Michael Bay, with a 'more is more' approach seemingly applied in producing the second Transformers film.


Revenge of the Fallen's plot will appeal to both sci-fi fans and fans of the franchise, however Bay overshadows the story by packing the film full of exhaustingly repetitive action sequences to the point of saturation. The characters and plot appear to just be something to fill the time with in between rounds of the contest.
For the first two thirds of the film, the human characters are largely sacrificed for the breakneck speed at which the plot hurtles along towards the next robot royal rumble.


As goofy and frantic as before, Shia LaBeouf is responsible for most good things in the film. On the other hand, the writers really failed with the addition of the annoying Leo (Ramon Rodriguez) and the two wise-cracking and Autobot twins, complete with racial slurs.


Applying a bigger is better philosophy, the cast of Transformers seems to have multiplied ten fold from the first film. The new Transformers are never properly introduced, and the vast number makes it difficult to identify the main characters amongst all the flying metal and exploding scenery.


At this point it should be mentioned that the CGI is impressive and the Transformer battle scenes are visually top notch. This usually counts for something in a film which relies on effects so heavily but the novelty of seeing cars and planes transform into robots was worn out in the original and so counts for less second time around. In all honesty I think Bay could have halved the budget and re-used the Transformer battle footage from the original given how unmemorable the battle scenes are in Revenge of the Fallen. 


Not likely to attract new fans to the Transformers series and worthwhile only for die hard fans.

FILM: Up (8/10)

Disney-Pixar have almost consistently produced films to a superb standard in recent years and Up does not just meet this standard but raise it further. As with its predecessors, the animation is great and the story is amusing and rich in sentiment but what makes Up stand out above the rest is the combination of unusual characters, odd story and superb Oscar winning score. 


With the exception of The Incredibles, Pixar have traditionally stayed away from humans as central characters. However, in Up the main characters are Mr. Fredricksen, a lonely, grumpy old man and Russell, a plump young explorer scout. An unlikely pair who are unintentionally thrown together as Mr. Fredricksen transports his house to South America using helium filled balloons to escape moving from his home. There they meet a group of talking dogs, an endangered bird and Mr. Fredricksen's childhood hero as the adventure and fun continues.


As plots go it is one of the most bizarre yet from Pixar but it's a fun journey and the writers actually cover the pretty serious themes of ageing and missed opportunities, loneliness and friendship along the way. The montage at the beginning of the film displaying the life Mr. Fredricksen shared with his wife, from their childhood to her death, is beautifully made and, supported by the superb score, is an incredibly emotive piece of film making.


If you are looking for an enjoyable, funny film for the family then you can not do much better than Up.