FILM: Argo (9/10)

Why did I watch it?

Argo has been high up on my list of films to see following the hype and awards it received on its release. I liked both of Ben Affleck's previous directorial efforts Gone Baby Gone and The Town.

What's it all about?

Based on a true story, Ben Affleck plays a CIA ex-filtration specialist Tony Mendez, tasked with getting a group of American embassy staff out of Iran in the months following the Iranian Hostage Crisis in 1979. Mendez turns to Hollywood, with support from film producers Alan Arkin and John Goodman, to create cover for the operation.

The Good:

• Sharp, funny script
• Affleck builds up the tension almost from the off and it rarely lets up anytime the action returns to Tehran
• The cynical Hollywood angle - Alan Arkin and John Goodman
• Bryan Cranston - just because
• Balanced introductory montage setting the scene for the Iranian Revolution and hostage crisis

The Bad:

• I got nothing, maybe the Mendez family angle which didn't add much value for me

Passport please, Mr Bat. Man

Favourite line:

'If I'm doing a fake movie, it's gonna be a fake hit!' - Lester Siegel

Stand-out moment:

The build-up to and storming of the American embassy in Tehran told from the viewpoint of the embassy officials

Like the film? Watch: Munich, The Americans (TV show)

Like the director? Watch: Gone Baby Gone, The Town

What my wife would say: Watched it and enjoyed it.

What the world thinks:

Rotten Tomatoes - 96%

Metacritic - 86/100

LAMB Score - 4.33/5
Twitter - 

Argo never fails to give me anxiety attacks even though I know the ending
— Maggie Genske (@maggie_genske) November 2, 2013

FILM: Bullitt (8/10)

Why did I watch it?

Always wanted to see 'the' car chase in this film and going to San Francisco recently gave me more of an excuse to check out Steve McQueen tearing up the hilly streets.

What's it all about?

Famously set in San Francisco, Steve McQueen stars as Frank Bullitt, a SFPD Lieutenant charged by self-serving politician (Robert Vaughn) to protect a Chicago mob informant for three days before delivering him to give evidence. After the mob track down the safehouse Bullitt decides to turn the tables and go after them.

Should you watch it?
More than just the famous car chase, which obviously stands out as it's centrepiece and still looks great, Bullitt is a well-paced cop thriller that I enjoyed watching throughout. Director Peter Yates had plenty to work with with old hands Steve McQueen and Robert Vaughn heading the cast. The scenes with the two at odds over Bullitt's approach are great to watch, more so with Bullitt's uncompromising attitude to being told what to do by some suit.

Slightly cooler than Herbie

The film's twist, if you can call it that, seemed to be unnecessarily contrived and following the car chase the story seemed to lose the tautness it had beforehand and definitely stutters at this point, not because of the chase but due to the revelation relating to the mob defectors true identity. Thankfully it regains it's momentum once Bullitt races to the airport in time for the film's climax. 

FILM: Premium Rush (5/10)

Why did I watch it?
Nothing specific here really. Wasn't fussed in seeing this at the cinema or on DVD but when it was on TV I thought I would check it out. Fact - director David Koepp is the fifth most successful screenwriter of all time in terms of domestic box office receipts, according to Wikipedia.

What's it all about?

Thrillseeking New York bike messenger Wilee (Joseph Gordon Levitt) is the man at the centre of the action when he collects a delivery that a desperate and corrupt cop (Michael Shannon) is willing to chase him all across NY to get his hands on. 

Should you watch it?

Premium Rush wants to play out like a modern day Speed, cat and mouse adrenaline fuelled chase with no brakes. Literally in the case of the protagonist Wilee's fixed speed bike, which deserved it's own credit considering the number of references to it. Unfortunately, Rush combines a basic premise, strengthened by a non-linear timeline, padded out with a contrived plot about Chinese nationals with what in places is an awful script, full of cheesy clichés. Clichéd adrenaline junkies spouting lines such as 'brakes are death' or 'this is the most fun I've had with my clothes on' really didn't help me to relate to any of the main characters. Koepp breaks up the action with graphics of the riders locations, displays of timers counting down as well as pausing time to allow the riders to consider and play out the options open to them when their most obvious route is blocked. These devices are effective but can't save the film from it's weaknesses. 

Michael Shannon is one of my favourite actors but here his bug-eyed expression combines with the bad lines resulting in a really cartoon villain. Shannon chews the scenery hard to make up the material but the result is only unintended amusement for the audience. Despite this Shannon is still watchable as always.

FILM: The Raven (5/10)

Why did I watch it?

I think I got drawn with a curiosity of all things Edgar Allan Poe after watching Fox's The Following.

What's it all about?

A woman and her daughter are founded murdered in 19th century Baltimore in a fashion that echoes one of Edgar Allan Poes' macabre literary works. Inspector Fields (Luke Evans) ropes the eccentric Poe (John Cusack), now a drunk forgotten writer struggling to regain his acclaimed status in the literary world, into his investigation to catch the killer.

Should you watch it?
I almost felt as disinterested in writing this review as I did watching the film so this will a short one. The Raven is an average film that never delivers anything above typical cat and mouse serial killer mediocrity. Director James McTeigue (V for Vendetta) manages to create some darkly Gothic settings but it's all shamefully wasted as the narrative never gets its teeth into the audience. When the serial killer was revealed, it lacked any twist, shock or suspense of any form and this sums up the film's general lack of intrigue. While reading other reviews, I've seen mentions to Se7en and when you hold The Raven up against David Fincher's great serial killer film, you realise how wasteful The Raven is considering the Gothic setting and characters involved.


Leads John Cusack and Luke Evans perform admirably and the producers deserve a gold star for not casting Johnny Depp as Poe (shudder). If you are watching to see Alice Eve, you may be disappointed unless her being trapped in a coffin for the majority of the film is your idea of fun.

FILM: Brake (6/10)

Why did I watch it?

I had never heard of Brake until it arrived on Sky Premiere recently. I gave it a spin because of the plot, which sounded intriguing and similar in a way to largely single location films like 127 Hours, Saw and Phone Booth, all of which I enjoyed.

What's it all about?

Secret Service Agent Jeremy Reins (Stephen Dorff) wakes up trapped inside a glass box inside a car boot. All he has for company is an old radio and the illuminated display of clock counting down.

Should you watch it?
For 90% of this film I would have said absolutely yes. Unfortunately, the other 10% (and you've guessed it, it's the ending) is a ridiculous example of writers trying to be too clever with twists. Imagine sitting through two M. Night Shyamalan style twists, each more damaging to the previous 80 minutes than the last, in the space of the final three minutes.

Up to this point I had greatly enjoyed Brake. I've never really noticed Dorff in any films I've seen him in before but here he is excellent as the hero in the box and gives his all to the performance as he is put through a series of physical and mental trials designed to make him give up the top secret info. Until the ending the plot is clever, fast paced and full of suspense and the writers use sensible plot devices to help move the narrative along without the audience just watching Jeremy wriggle around for 80 minutes. The direction (Gabe Torres) is also sharp and avoids too much darkness (like a car boot really would be !) by cleverly using the red illumination from the clock to create a tense mood in boot space. Also Brian Tyler provides the score and he doesn't disappoint as usual.

"Do you do delivery?"

Overall Brake has so many things going for it and is a surprisingly taught thriller for those who enjoy this genre of thrillers, however it will also be damaged by the unnecessary and frankly bonkers ending.

FILM: World War Z (7/10)

Why did I watch it?
World War Z was my most anticipated film of 2013 (2013 anticipated films).

What's it all about?
After escaping Philadelphia with his family in tow, UN investigator Gerry Lane (Brad Pitt) is tasked with tracing the source of a global zombie pandemic that shows no signs of slowing.

Should you watch it?

I am going to dedicate one paragraph and one paragraph only to the subject of the film being massively different and inferior to the book it is allegedly based upon. Max Brooks' novel is a collection of accounts of the worldwide war against zombies and covers social, religious and political repercussions stemming from the global war. Marc Forster's film is a zombie based action film led by Brad Pitt with occasional references to locations (Israel) or terminology (Zeke) from the source material. The term 'based on' has never been so loosely used. Being a massive fan of the book, I lowered my expectations for the film to match my disappointment after finding out that the screenplay was not staying truer to the spirit of the book. Anyway, that's out of the way now and this review will now attempt to assess the film on it's own merits.

The film wastes no time, racing out of the traps with only a few minutes used to introduce the Lane family, father Gerry (Pitt), mother Karin (Mireille Enos) and two daughters, before the zombie outbreak takes over Philadelphia. From this point it's all zombie tension and action, including some well shot action sequences in an eerily lit apartment complex, until Gerry gets his family out to the UN fleet off the coast of America. This domestic introduction to the outbreak gives way to a more global perspective as the UN look to investigate the source in order to develop a vaccine. I felt this worldwide globe-trotting series of locations and discussions of the differing strategies of different nations following the outbreak was much more consistent with the spirit of the book.

Red light district

In my mind, introducing the zombies so early on in the film (we discover the world is overran within thirty minutes) underlines that Forster saw the film as more of a global thriller investigating the world's ability to cope with a zombie outbreak more similar to the likes of Contagion rather than a true zombie horror flick like Dawn of the Dead. I had no issue with this, and neither did I have any complaints (as I have seen consistently made) with either the lack of gore (only a 15 in the UK) or the speed of the zombies. Firstly with the gore, I personally don't see it as a prerequisite for a zombie film, if the director (or studio I imagine) choose to include it then so be it but I think there has been enough on The Walking Dead to see me through to the next season. Secondly with the zombies, there are some inconsistencies in their relative speed and intelligence and they did look very similar to the vampires from I Am Legend, but the fast nature of the herd is a change from the norm and does lead to some awesome looking scenes. Also, I don't think the film ever really confirmed that the infected were zombies or the undead, only that these were literal translations of terms used in other countries.

I found the film capable of a decent level of tension and suspense in places although I really did begin to get frustrated with the repeatedly clumsy nature of the cast as they banged into everything in their way and attracted the attention of zombies. Doesn't anyone look where they are going?

Brad Pitt's chopper takes off after a day's shooting in Glasgow

I thought that the rehashed ending (courtesy of rewriters Drew Goddard and Damon Lindelof) lost it's way in comparison with the more international nature of the film's first two acts and became more of a typical zombie film without being anything special, and this act was definitely the film's weakest part.

Considering the delays and re-writes, World War Z is a success, in that it made it to the big screen at all and I actually enjoyed large parts of it. However, it's inconsistent writing and ending, not to mention the huge divergence from the book will always be a source of frustration to many.

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.

BOOK: The Sum of All Fears, Tom Clancy (6/10)

Why did I read it?
Another book, another Tom Clancy Jack Ryan story. Book number five of my odyssey through Clancy's Ryan series.

What's it all about?

A nuclear missile lies missing in the Syrian desert for decades until it is discovered by a farmer before ending up in the hands of Arab terrorists, angry that a landmark Holy Land peace deal between Jews, Muslims and Christians and brokered by the US is proving successful. The terrorists recruit East German nuclear experts, themselves angry that world socialism has collapsed, to help customise the warhead for use on American soil. With that emergency approaching, Jack Ryan, now CIA Deputy Director, has to deal with problems at home and a rapidly deteriorating relationship with the current US president and his advisers.

Should you read it?
TSOAF is the longest of Clancy's Jack Ryan books so far, and at over 1000 pages (paperback version) it was a chore to read in parts, and need not have been so. The main event of the book takes place about 600-700 pages in, and the story has been well and truly set by this point. From this point on the book became a real page-turner, as the tension between East and West increased alongside increasing DEFCON levels and Ryan tries to avert the global nuclear war his shellshocked president is leading the US towards.

Clancy being Clancy, couldn't not dedicate a vast number of pages to the details of the nuclear warhead's assembly and the side side story of the submarine USS Maine seemed totally superfluous. All in all it was no wonder the film adaptation was massively streamlined.

TSOAF is probably the most personal Jack Ryan story yet, even more so than Patriot Games, as National Security Advisor Elizabeth Elliott temporarily succeeds in undermining his marriage as well as his position. This storyline is ultimately easily solved but Clancy uses it to highlight the contempt Elliott has for Ryan, which has huge dangerous consequences at the vital moment. The trouble between Ryan and his wife also parallels the escalating strife between East and West, worsening through rash assumptions and easily solved through simple communication.

FILM: Rear Window (9/10)

Why did I watch it?
I started 2013 having seen no Hitchcock films, Rear Window was number three and was one I was familiar with having seen both Disturbia and the references to it in The Simpsons.

What's it all about?
Remember The Simpsons episode where Bart breaks his leg and spends all his time cooped up alone, looking out of his window, until he becomes insistent he saw Ned Flanders murder his wife? That plot is a fully lifted tribute to Rear Window. Professional photographer James Stewart is wheelchair bound with a broken leg and passes his time casually watching out across the yard where he can see into the windows of all his neighbours. Things turn sinister when he notices the wife of one neighbour is missing and becomes certain the husband is guilty of murder. Grace Kelly stars as his girlfriend, at first uncomfortable with his 'peeping tom' habits.

Should you watch it?
In one word, absolutely. With a 100% fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes, Rear Window is often listed amongst Hitchcock's best films and the praise is just. Although I had seen the story played out in modern adaptations, Hitchcock's original felt fresh and superior. I shouldn't even be comparing Rear Window to Disturbia, despite enjoying that film, but by being immobile compared to just under house arrest, Stewart is all the more helpless later on in the film in comparison with Shia LaBeouf, resulting in far greater tension.

Straight from the opening credits, I felt that the set developed for the film was perfect, almost claustrophobic, allowing the camera to flow freely from window to window from Jeff's (Stewart) viewpoint as he keeps up on the lives of their occupants. 

Voyeurism is an addictive habit and one that everyone is guilty of to some degree. Jeff's visitors frown upon his behaviour initially but after becoming persuaded by the serious possibilities of what Jeff claims to have witnessed, they become equally obsessed. There is something about spying on someone who believes they are in a private environment that appeals to the seedy side of human nature and Hitchcock succeeds in reeling the audience in as they become voyeurs too through Jeff's eyes.

By the time Jeff and his budding detectives have put themselves in harms way, Hitchcock has taken the slow burning tension through the roof to great effect.

The view from Jeff's rear window

FILM: The Birds (8/10)

Why did I watch it?
I watched this as part of my voyage through some of Hitchcock's more famous films.

What's it all about?
San Francisco socialite Melanie Daniels (Tippi Hedren) visits an isolated Californian coastal town to track down bachelor Mitch Brenner (Rod Taylor). What she doesn't bargain for is the town being violently attacked by masses of birds.

Should you watch it?
I hadn't even heard of The Birds until a few weeks ago, let alone just never watched it. Now I am glad I have. In The Birds, Hitchcock created a really suspenseful 'monster' film, not with aliens or the like, but with the common bird fulfilling the 'monster' role. Using vast numbers of birds in some excellent shots, he skilfully gives the bird masses, in particular the crows, a menacing nature you would not think possible.

The attack scenes vary from somewhat camp and over the top to terrifying, think of the birds pecking through the front door in the final attack. By choosing not to use a score, Hitchcock ratchets up the suspense as the audience listens out for the crowing warning sounds of another attack.

Imagine the droppings

Underneath the bird attacks, the central story passes along a little slowly to begin with, serving only to get the protagonists in place, but I guess this, and the acknowledgements that something seems amiss with the local bird population, only builds up the suspense for what is to come later.

That the bird attacks are never explained only adds to the terror, was it the lovebirds, or was the terrified lady right, was it Melanie herself?

An accomplished horror based on a simple idea.

FILM: Limitless (6/10)

Why did I watch it?
This was one that the missus recorded, presumably just because it had Bradley Cooper in it. Still, I remember seeing the trailer when it came out and wondering if it was worth a watch.

What's it all about?
Based on The Dark Fields by Alan Glynn, Limitless tells the story of frustrated writer, Eddie (Cooper), who is offered a pill with the ability to enlighten senses and increase the brain's capacity for memory and awareness beyond that of human beings. Having taken the drug, Eddie's success improves dramatically, and his life along with it, but problems arise at the top when he attracts attention, struggles with the side effects and realises his supply cannot last indefinitely.

Should you watch it?
Limitless is an above average thriller, not without its flaws, but nonetheless well anchored by Cooper's versatile performance as both bum and success story. The film earns points for its varied cinematography and effects, giving clear distinction between the times when Eddie is experiencing the drugs illumination and not. The plot is a little thin, the ending feels almost tagged on as an afterthought and while Abbie Cornish doesn't really have much to do, Robert De Niro doesn't bring as much gusto as you would expect to his role as the investment kingpin who takes an interest in Eddie's success.

BOOK: Clear and Present Danger, Tom Clancy (9/10)

Why did I read it?
Following on from The Cardinal of the Kremlin, Clear and Present Danger is next up in my odyssey through Tom Clancy's Jack Ryan series. This story is new to me as I have never seen Phillip Noyce's 1994 film adaptation.

What's it all about?
In an election year, the US administration authorises the CIA to begin legally ambiguous covert operations against the Medellin Cartel deep inside Columbia, with intentions of impacting the import of drugs to the US. In parallel, the FBI uncovers and shuts down the Cartel's global money laundering scheme at a cost of millions of dollars to the drug kingpins. This provokes an angry response from the Cartel and endangers the lives of the men on the ground in Columbia. Previously kept out of the loop, newly appointed Deputy Director (Intelligence) Jack Ryan discovers the clandestine operation has been blown and works to get the teams out before it's too late.

Should you read it?

Clear and Present Danger is one of Tom Clancy's strongest works. All but one of the previous Jack Ryan stories were inspired by Soviet-American tensions but with the Cold War thawing out, Clancy turns his attention to the drug epidemic in the US in the eighties to good effect.

Covert operations in the jungle, assassinations, shady Presidential orders, drug kingpins, Clear and Present Danger is exciting from start to finish. Clancy's high level of technical detail is not as evident here, allowing the story to flow back and forwards from Washington to the jungles of Columbia.

Clancy introduces a wealth of characters throughout the book resulting in Jack Ryan's role being the most limited of all his books so far. The CIA operations ghost John Clark (played by Willem Defoe in the film adaptation) plays a far more prominent role this time around.

FILM: To Catch a Thief (6/10)

Why did I watch it?
So this was it, my first Hitchcock film. After making a New Year's resolution to dedicate some time to The Master of Suspense, I had the opportunity to watch To Catch a Thief on a plane recently.

What's it all about?
A string of jewel thefts from wealthy holidaymakers on the French Riviera lead the police to suspect that retired American burglar and Riviera resident John 'the Cat' Robie (Cary Grant) is not as retired as thought. Whilst protesting his innocence, Robie schemes to expose the copycat thief by getting close to a wealthy mother and daughter (Grace Kelly) with valuable jewels but can he be trusted?

Should you watch it?
Frankly speaking I was more than a little disappointed with To Catch a Thief. Watching it without knowing what to expect, the film seemed more style than substance and where provided, the substance is more romantic comedy and sexual innuendo than thriller. There is no doubt that Grant and Kelly have good chemistry as they flirt with each other throughout, using the witty script to good effect. Neither is there a doubt that the film must have looked impressive upon release, full as it is of shots of the Riviera and its grand hotels. Hitchcock manages to maintain intrigue over the question of Robie's intentions until the film's finale, but it would be kind to call this true suspense.

Enjoyable though the film was from a romantic adventure point of view, perhaps To Catch a Thief was not the best Hitchcock film for me to start with. 

BOOK: The Cardinal of the Kremlin, Tom Clancy (6/10)

Why did I read it?
Book number four of my Tom Clancy odyssey.

What's it all about?
Cardinal of the Kremlin combines a cold war race to develop Strategic Defence Initiatives (so called 'Star Wars' by the media) with arms reduction initiatives, the Soviet war in Afghanistan and most prominently, the exposure of the highly placed US intelligence source in Moscow, Cardinal. Once exposed, Jack Ryan develops a plan to rescue the source without interfering in the political battle taking place at the very top of the Soviet Politburo.

Should you read it?
An expert at what he does, Clancy manages to weave the various plot elements into a reasonably taught thriller. Although the book takes it's place in the Jack Ryan chronology, Cardinal acts as a direct sequel to Clancy's first book The Hunt For Red October, with Captain Marko Ramius making a reappearance. Jack Ryan actually only plays a small role for the majority of the story, only coming to the forefront for the final act.

The story is definitely most absorbing when in the USSR, either following the Cardinal, his US contacts or the KGB's counter-intelligence officers, especially once the Cardinal becomes compromised or when concerned with the political scheming of the Politburo's top officials, including the KGB chief, for whom the discovery of an American source is political gold-dust. I found the 'Star Wars' laser weaponry side of the story and the detail in which Clancy describes it considerably less interesting and nothing more than a distraction from the cut and thrust of the espionage action. 

TV: Homeland (S2) (8/10)

Why did I watch it?

I really enjoyed the first season of Homeland although I did have some doubts as to how long the show could keep up the cat and mouse action between Carrie and Brody.

What's it all about?

Brody, a marine recently returned from eight years of captivity by al-Qaeda, is now a US Congressman approached by Vice President Walden to be his running mate for the forthcoming presidential election. Following her humiliation at the end of the last season, Carrie's health is returning and no longer working for the CIA, her life is beginning to return to normal until evidence appears proving her theories regarding Brody's true intentions.

Should you watch it?
Homeland is one of the stronger shows on TV at the moment. The second season takes a few episodes to finds its groove again and suffers throughout from instances of Carrie's hotheadedness and inability to follow orders. I really struggle to believe that such a liability would be employed by the CIA, but hey it's just TV.

The events of the first episode The Smile are just about as contrived as possible to bring Carrie, who finished the previous season having electroshock therapy, back into the fold at the Langley. Once Carrie is back, the momentum of the show shifts hugely, one of two shifts in this season, as evidence comes to light that Brody is a terrorist and more importantly that Carrie's theories were correct. Considering the events of the first season and also Carrie's flirtation with suicide in State of Independence, this is a pretty major change in direction for the show as Carrie is no longer alone and frustrated and receives the support (and apologies) of Saul and Estes. The second change in momentum is perhaps even greater and brings Brody into the CIA operation to target Abu Nazir. These shifts keep the show fresh and intriguing and both are delivered in true dramatic Homeland style. The episode Q&A features some great scenes between Carrie and Brody, delivered with great intensity by Claire Danes and Damien Lewis. Even following Brody's switch, the writers manage to retain a sense of distrust and ambiguity over Brody's actions to drive the show forward. He clearly gets away with one act of terrorism during the final episodes but is he responsible for another?

"Tell us a bit about yourself"

Carrie's health demons play less of a role this time around, instead her relationship with Brody picks up a few gears and there are certainly shades of Romeo and Juliet, as two star crossed lovers who can never truly be together. Mandy Patinkin's understated Saul is one of my most favourite characters on TV.

Steering into 24 territory (unsurprising considering the show's writers), the season ends with a big bang in the fantastic finale The Choice with major consequences for all the major characters.

BOOK: Patriot Games, Tom Clancy (7/10)

Why did I read it?

The continuation of my Tom Clancy odyssey. Book two of the Jack Ryan universe.

What's it all about?
Set prior to the events of The Hunt for Red October, Professor Jack Ryan, a former marine, interrupts a terrorist attack on the Prince of Wales and his family outside Buckingham Palace. Following the attack, Ryan and his family find themselves the target of a revengeful member of the fictional ULA, a small violent, splinter group of the Provisional IRA. Ryan assists the CIA and their British counterparts as they attempt to stop the terrorists from striking again.

Should you read it?
Fans of the film or of the Jack Ryan character will enjoy this book. A shorter and easier read compared to Red Storm Rising. It differs from the previous two Tom Clancy books, in that the level of military detail is missing, replaced with far greater emphasis on both the personal nature of the story and also the intelligence community. Fresh from two books dealing with US/Soviet relations, Clancy turns to the world of the terrorist in Patriot Games, selecting the troubles between Ireland and Britain, a relationship which has always held interest on the other side of the Atlantic.

Worth looking out for the different ending to the book from the 1992 film. Clancy disowned the film adaptation after the ending was changed to give the audience more of an emotional pay-off.

BOOK: Red Storm Rising, Tom Clancy (5/10)

Why did I read it?

After finishing The Hunt for Red October, I decided to begin a Tom Clancy odyssey starting with his next book Red Storm Rising.

What's it all about?

Islamic terrorists destroy a major Soviet oil production facility. Soviet oil production rates are severely damaged and anticipating that the US may take the opportunity to apply pressure with the Soviet military under supplied, the Soviets plan to invade the Persian Gulf to seize oil. First, the KGB frames Germany for a terrorist attack on the Kremlin to permit an invasion of West Germany and war with NATO. The story of what in reality becomes the Third World War is told from both sides across Europe and the North Atlantic.   

Should you read it?

Reading Red Storm Rising is like reading an account of a 20th century game of Risk taking place across Europe on land, in the air and on the seas. Tank divisions meet in West Germany, Iceland is fought over for control of the Atlantic as US convoys try to cross it to support the NATO cause. Unfortunately, once Clancy has narrated the war's outset, beginning with the Soviet KGB operation and culminating with US intelligence realising a Soviet offensive is coming, the story becomes less of a thriller and more of detailed story of modern day warfare seriously lacking in intrigue. Over 800 pages long in some editions, to be honest it became a bit of a chore towards the end. Only at the end does the story really return from the battlefield and become more interesting, even if I did find the ending slightly unfulfilling. 

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.

BOOK: The Hunt for Red October, Tom Clancy (8/10)

Why did I read it?

Remembered enjoying the film a while back and thought the book would be worth a read for a bit more detail.

What's it all about?

For those that haven't seen the film, Red October is a Russian submarine captained by respected submariner Marko Ramius. Taking place during the Cold War, Ramius and his officers aim to defect to the US taking their brand new submarine with them. Independently, the US and Russsians get wind of the attempted defection and without alerting each other to their true intentions both sides race against time to locate the submarine. CIA analyst Jack Ryan gets thrown into the action as the CIA contact to the US military's mission following his theory that Ramius was attempting to defect and not launch missiles at the US.

Should you read it?

The Hunt for Red October is a really gripping pressure-cooker thriller and probably one of the best cold war thrillers out there. In comparison with the film adaptation, Clancy's original story includes a few extra sub-plots and twists as well as additional characters (US President and Russian ambassador). I never realised quite how boiled down the film version was. Clancy's additional detail and demonstrated research into the operation of submarines may put off some readers and perhaps understandably so, but I found it both interesting and complimentary to the plot.    

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.