Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back

Written and Directed by: Kevin Smith

At some point, writer / director Kevin Smith lost his interest in the View Askewniverse that he had created. But as one last hurrah he decided to give Jay and Silent Bob - previously only supporting characters - their own film. He also decided to cram as many inside jokes and geek references into the film as possible. The result: "Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back."

The film's plot is paper thin, but worth discussing. Jay and Silent Bob, who were influences for a comic book series (as seen in "Chasing Amy") find out that their comic book is being turned into a movie. They decide to head to Hollywood, but along the way they become scapegoats for a jewelry heist. The two continue on their way, encountering numerous celebrities (appearing both as themselves and sometimes as characters). Eventually, they're exonerated for their crime and get the money that started the whole fiasco.

Although the film originally received much criticism, I feel that it needs to be viewed with the same lens with which it was written and made - that of a love letter. Smith made this movie to be the glorious send off to his two most cherished characters, pulling no punches to make it the grande finale of the universe he created. As such, he succeeded.

Smith made the movie he wanted to make. It has characters returning from previous movies as well as repeated references to those films. It also has jokes based on the things he and his friends enjoy (or, at least, enjoyed at the time), and it doesn't matter if you don't understand them all - they're not for you. This movie wasn't necessarily intended for a vast audience to enjoy. It was more of a home-movie that teenagers make, writing it based on whatever they like and inviting all their friends to be in it, then showing it off whenever they get the chance to whoever will watch.

I definitely enjoyed all the random roles and cameos from celebrities and pseudo-celebrities. The scene when Ben Affleck and Matt Damon "prepare" for their roles is hilarious, and it was fun to see Jason Biggs and James Van Der Beek poke fun at their own limited roles. Carrie Fisher pops up as a nun who unintentionally spews innuendo. Even Mark Hamill - most famous for being Luke Skywalker - shows up as the super-villain in the "Bluntman and Chronic" movie-within-a-movie.

That being said, there is some room for criticism. At times it felt like the movie was too far-reaching and attempted to include every joke that could be made, rather than selecting only the best gags. As with most comedies, the story was convoluted and disjointed, so that by the end you had been distracted so many times that you had basically forgotten where they were going or why they were trying to get their.

To truly appreciate this movie, you have to remove the irony from your viewing. You must accept that this movie wasn't made for you, but that you are allowed to enjoy it. Once you get past that, you can see the heartwarming center of a writer / director saying good-by to his beloved universe. (But try not to think about how he brought it all back - one more time - for "Clerks II.")

The Velvet Underground and Nico

For several years, Continuum Publishing has been releasing books about albums as part of the "33 1/3" series. The series represents albums from across several genres, and the authors come from backgrounds just as diverse.

Joe Harvard's book on "The Velvet Underground and Nico" can easily be described as more pseudo-academic and less personal narrative. Rather than blathering on about how great the album is and his personal connection to the songs, Harvard takes a much more analytic approach to discussing the album. The book is divided into three major sections: the Setting, the Songs, and the Aftermath.

In "The Setting," Harvard provides some historical background on the band and how the album came to be recorded and produced. It was interesting to find out things like how exactly Andy Warhol was involved on the album as the "producer" (which was not much, although his influence was key to getting the album recorded) as well as how Nico became a member of the band. At times, when the chronology of when a certain song was written and recorded and re-recorded is unclear, the book can become a bit tedious - Harvard explains each and every scenario while acknowledging the contradictions and lack of support.

In "The Songs," Harvard breaks down the influences, history, music, and lyrics of each song from the album, one by one. Although each song is, ostensibly, given equal treatment, it's clear that the more significant songs are discussed with a little more passion and interest. Still, it is at this point that the book loses some of its objective veneer and some of the author's personal feelings sneak into the book.

The final section - "The Aftermath" - discusses the album's public reception and places the album in it's larger place within the history of rock music.

At times the attention to detail in the book interfered with the "bigger picture" that I was hoping for as a reader. Throughout the book, the author assumes that the reader already knows a bit about the band's history, the dynamics between the various band members, and the techniques used in producing the album. Although I did know some of these things, I felt like I "couldn't see the forest because of the trees" at some points - the details were too overwhelming. The author also references details on alternate takes and demo recording which are not widely available (and which are incredibly pricey when they are to be found), which became discouraging.

That being said, this book was very interesting. I appreciate the analytical approach to breaking-down the album. Too often, books of appreciation - such as this - become bogged down in the personal stories of the authors and the idolizing of those involved with the record. Though Harvard definitely treats those involved with an elevated level of artistic respect, it did not seem out of hand. Rather, it felt more like one artist respecting another artist's work. In any case, I've been inspired to read another book in the "33 1/3" series, eventually.

X-Men: First Class

Directed by: Matthew Vaughn

Screenplay by: Ashley Miller, Zack Stentz, Jane Goldman, Matthew Vaughn

Story by: Bryan Singer, Sheldon Turner

It's been a long time since we've had a good "X-Men" film. Alas, "The Last Stand" was not up to the same standard as the rest, and I'm not sure that the origin film for Wolverine really counts. In the shadow of the success of Christopher Nolan's success with his Batman reboot series (and somehow despite failure of the Superman reboot), it was only a matter of time before a new X-Men series was born.

The film begins with an evil Nazi scientist Sebastian Shaw (Kevin Bacon) experimenting on a young Magneto, finding that anger releases his power. A quick jump forward to the 1960s, a young Charles Xavier is writing papers about the evolutionary nature of genetic mutations on humans. Xavier and Magneto cross paths in an attempt to stop Shaw, and so, with some financing from the CIA, the X-Men are born. The two start rounding up young mutants and training them. Shaw shows up and convinces a few of the mutants to join his fight against humanity. The rest of the X-Men go "underground" and finish their training. Eventually (in a slight re-writing of history), Shaw tries to start World War III via the Cuban Missile Crisis, and only the X-Men can stop him. Although a nuclear war is averted, Magneto begins to ascribe to Shaw's views and leaves the X-Men, taking a few followers with him...

As an X-Men fan, I was happily pleased with this film. There are certainly some continuity issues with this film and some other minor points in the other X-Men movies, but, frankly, I didn't care. The feature I most appreciated was the telling of Magneto's story - spending time as a Nazi hunter, helping Xavier without buying into his idealism - which was often alluded to in the earlier films but largely went untold.

Both James McAvoy and Michael Fassbender both did excellent jobs of playing their characters (Xavier and Magneto, respectively) in their own unique way while also staying close to the characters which Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellen had already developed. I was completely able to buy into their characters as younger versions of the characters I already know, while also understanding that the story was not necessarily a direct prequel to the earlier stories. In other words, Xavier and Magneto were rich powerful characters.

The film's flaw may have been in it's overreaching story. It tried to tell too many stories - so many that it was hard to care about all of them, and a few of them could have been cut on the editing room floor. For example, as much as I love Oliver Platt, his character was largely irrelevant and was mainly a conduit to connect Xavier to an early version of the Cerebro device. This added to the already film's already long running time. There was also a montage sequence, which I usually despise, although in his case it worked well with the comic book motif of the movie (with all those little side frames and whatnot).

The effects were impressive, if a bit cartoonish - which is fine because the movie is basically a glorified comic book. I'm not sure if some of the scenes will play well away from the big screen, but only time will tell on that.

I recommend seeing this film, especially for fans of the X-Men series. The film is not disappointing. Just remember - it's a comic-book... it's a comic-book... it's a comic-book...

The Naked Gun: From the Files of Police Squad!

Directed by: David Zucker

Written by: Jerry Zucker, Jim Abrahams, David Zucker, Pat Proft

Once upon a time, there was a little TV show called "Police Squad!" It came and went rather quickly, but built up quite a cult following. So, what is a studio to do? Make a movie!

"The Naked Gun" tells the story of Lt. Frank Drebin of LA's (fictitious) Police Squad, as he tries to uncover a plot to murder the queen of England. Drebin, with some help from his friends Ed and Nordberg (George Kennedy and O.J. Simpson, respectively), bumbles his way into the plan of millionaire Vincent Ludwig (the always amazing Ricardo Montalban) who intends to use a mind-control device to assassinate Queen Elizabeth II for reasons left unexplained. Along the way Drebin falls in love with Ludwig's secretary, who Ludwig uses to keep tabs on him. All of this leads to the hilarious climax at a baseball game.

I can't tell you how many times I've seen this movie, nor can I enumerate how many of the jokes have made their way into my common conversation. As soon as I heard that it was going to be screened as part of the local Classic Film Wednesday series, I knew I couldn't miss it. Just thinking about the film would make me laugh with anticipation at some of my favorite lines - "Hey! It's Enrico Pallazzo!"

One of the great things about "The Naked Gun" is how even and consistent the jokes are, throughout the movie. Most of the humor is slapstick, with Nielsen playing the perpetual unknowing straight-man to most of the jokes. In terms of slapstick silliness, the film jumps right in during the opening sequence and doesn't miss a beat for the rest of the movie. Most comedies start off strong, but the jokes fade as action is needed to move the plot forward. "The Naked Gun," though, is more consistently paced, and the climax of the film is just as funny (if not more funny) than the rising action.

Although the humor is timeless, the movie is starting to show its age, as some of the cultural references are fading from our collective memory. For example, the first scene makes a joke about Mikhail Gorbachev's birthmark, though you'll be hard pressed to find anyone under twenty-five who can explain the gag. Even O.J. Simpson - whose part took on an ironic twist with his legal troubles - is not as prominent as a cultural icon as he once was. Some of the clothing and hair styles are definitely jarring to the modern eye - just see Priscilla Presley's hair for most of the movie as evidence. Even some of the color palates used simply place the movie outside of the contemporary realm.

It's sad to think that, with Leslie Nielsen's recent passing, these types of purely slapstick parodies may fading from the film industry. I hope that everyone gets an opportunity to see this movie and can appreciate it with an open mind.

The Other Guys

Directed by: Adam McKay

Written by: Adam McKay, Chris Henchy

There's something downright alluring about the buddy-cop genre of film, whether it's being played straight as an action movie or being parodied as a comedy. Hollywood has used this archetype numerous times over the last few decades, altering it only slightly, while never quite reaching the idealistic peak for which they shoot.

"The Other Guys" follows a typical plot-arc for a buddy-cop film: Two seemingly mismatched cops accidentally uncover a massive criminal plot. In this case, the plot is a Madoff-style ponzi scheme which involves both the mob and the police pension plans. Chaos and hilarity ensue.

One of the problems with "The Other Guys" is that it fails to escape the gravity of influence of every other buddy-cop movie. When compared to other recent additions to the genre - "Cop Out" and "Hot Fuzz" - it's hard to see what the difference between the three films is (aside from the fact that "Hot Fuzz" was British). The same problem applies to Will Ferrell's performance - it's hard to differentiate between his character in this film and in most of his other films.

That being said, "The Other Guys" is pretty funny, but that humor is unbalanced. The jokes dramatically shift from slapstick silliness (the "bribery" scene) to more cerebral meta-humor (the running gag of Michael Keaton unknowingly quoting TLC songs). Mark Walberg's character is uneven and randomly morphs from the classic straight-man to a mindless gag and back again at the whim of the script. For example, when he is in the car with Ferrell he plays his part completely seriously with a bit of synicism, but mere moments later when he is having dinner at Ferrell's house he is reduced to a bumbling idiot when trying to talk to Ferrell's wife (played by Eva Mendes). I thought the scenes with Mendes were great, but the total shift in character made for a lot of dissonance, which is hard to take in a comedy that is already asking the viewer to suspend their disbelief beyond most films.

One highlight of the movie is the early use of Samuel L. Jackson and The Rock (aka Dwayne Johnson but forever known as The Rock) as walking parodies of macho man cops that often appear in more serious cop films. Both actors play their parts with such absolute seriousness which is repeatedly turned on its head with moments of complete absurdity. Both players over-act to the point of humor without giving a hint of self-consciousness, which allows their scenes to play both as action sequences and parodies of action sequences.

I appreciated and enjoyed "The Other Guys," but it's hard to recommend it over any other buddy-cop type of comedy. (Except maybe "Cop Out," though I think that speaks more to the weakness of "Cop Out" more than anything else. Sorry Kevin Smith.)

It Might Get Loud

Directed by: Davis Guggenheim

Guggenheim's documentary answers the question "What would happen if you put three great guitar musicians, representing three different generations of rock music, in the same room?" The answer, apparently, is a cover of The Band's "The Weight."

The profile of Jimmy Page reveals that he was trained as a classical guitar player, getting his start recording as part of an orchestra. Page is the most technically accomplished musician in the group, actually being able to read sheet music and play a piece in one take by simply looking at the notes. Yet, in describing how Led Zepplin recorded "When the Levee Breaks," he reveals some of the acoustic experimentation which leads directly to the next generation represented in the film.

The Edge, following in Page's footsteps, is much more experimental in how he produces his sound. The audience is allowed to see how he uses his "brain" to produce incredible sounds out of relatively simple riffs on the guitar using various loops and effects. The Edge comes off as the most philosophical musician in the film, even if he uses the tortured-rock-star cliche "I want to make the music I hear in my head come out of the speakers." (Or something along those lines - it was definitely the corniest moment in the film.)

Jack White seems to fly off in a different direction from the other two artists, basing his guitar playing less on technicality and effects and more on the revelation of emotion. Footage is included of him literally bleeding on a guitar as he plays. He is also the most avant-garde and eccentric of the artists profiled, using unusual methods - such as bending and stepping on the guitar - to get the sound that he wants.

Overall, the film was interesting, although it helps to be familiar with the musicians and their work. At various points they describe the inspiration and development of songs, but if you're not familiar with that song then you're out of luck.

The biggest problem I had with this film was that it felt more anecdotal than narrative. There were lots of interesting stories and clips, but taken as a whole they were rather mish-mash and random. It is too hard to take the smaller pieces to create a bigger message in this film. That being said, those individual pieces and snippets are very enjoyable, just don't expect them to build up to a moment of great revelation - it just won't happen.

Final verdict: An enjoyable ninety-plus minutes of great guitar music, even if there's no sense of enlightenment at the end. Just Page, Edge, and White playing "The Weight."

Mystery Science Theater 3000: The Movie

Directed by: Jim Mallon

Written by: Joel Hodgson, Michael J. Nelson, Trace Beaulieu, Jim Mallon, Kevin Murphy, Mary Jo Pehl, Paul Chaplin, Bridget Jones

For those not familiar with "Mystery Science Theater 3000," you must understand that everything about it is basically absurd. Originally a TV series, it followed the life of Joel (later Mike) - an average guy who is kidnapped and experimented on by the mad scientist, Dr. Clayton Forrester. The mad doctor's experiments involve gaining mind control over all humanity by using the worst science fiction movies ever made. Luckily for Joel/Mike, there are some friendly robots who help him survive the awful films by providing a humorous commentary track to go along with the movie. Perhaps the most recognizable symbol of MST3K is the silhouette of Mike/Joel and the robots beneath a movie screen. (Look at the picture above!)

It's not worth recounting the plot of the movie, as the very meta movie-within-a-movie-about-a-movie can really make things convoluted. Suffice to say that this time the protagonists are required to watch the sci-fi classic "This Island Earth" and hilarity ensues.

To start: This is one of the most unique comedies you will ever see. The jokes are constant and relentless, and it requires multiple viewings to catch (or in some cases, understand) them all. There are one-off jokes and running gags, and even a few intermission sequences with Joel and the robots wandering around the ship which spice things up a bit.

I'd definitely recommend having a familiarity with the premise of the show (above) and an open mind - especially if you've never seen anything MST3K before. The humor can be a bit jarring, and it takes a while to get used to the style. This movie was not designed as a jumping-on point. It is the shortest segment of the franchise (an hour, thirteen minutes), though, so if you're crunched for time it might be reasonable to check out. The typical episodes from TV run a full 90 minutes (two hours, if you actually watched them on TV).

To be honest, even for those familiar with the show, this isn't the best representation of MST3K's offbeat magic. The jokes are rather uneven, with the gags at the beginning of the movie being much stronger and tapering off to smaller chuckles towards the end. This leads to a sense of the film being incredibly long, despite the fact that it's shorter than most feature films.

If you're looking for something funny and you're tired of watching "The Hangover" or the latest Judd Apatow junk, then I'd recommend giving MST3K a try. I just don't necessarily recommend giving judging the whole series by this incarnation of the series.

The War

Directed by: Ken Burns, Lynn Novick

Written by: Geoffrey C. Ward

Ken Burns, who is known for making comprehensive documentaries about essential elements of American culture, tackles what is perhaps the defining moment in 20th century American history - the United States involvement in World War II.

With only seven episodes (approximately fourteen hours), "The War" is somewhat limited in its scope, considering the vast amount of material available. This is especially true considering how recent the events of this film are to modern times, relatively speaking compared to Burns's previous subjects. To focus the film, and to avert criticism, each episode begins with the epigram "The Second World War was fought in thousands of places, too many for any one accounting. This is the story of four American towns and how their citizens experienced that war."

This film marks a significant departure from the typical Ken Burns style. Usually, he divides his documentaries into a mix of interweaving storylines and character sketches, backed with historical narratiion and dynamic and illustrated maps. Although the narration remains (in the deep voice of Keith David), the use of maps was limited and the storylines and character sketches were conspicuous in their absence. In their place, the film leans heavily on powerful first-person interviews and narratives with those who were actually a part of the war effort. It's hard to criticize such a shift in style - especially given the opportunity Ken Burns could take advantage of to have these people share such incredible stories. But it's also hard not to imagine which character sketches could have been included, considering the vibrant major participants - Eisenhower, Roosevelt, and, of course, Patton.

Another departure from the usual Ken Burns model is that this film does not seek any kind of balance in the narrative. Enough has already been written about the omission of, and later inclusion of, the contributions of African-Americans, Latino-Americans, and Native-Americans to the war effort, so I will not add to that. This lack of balance, though, extends to the fact that only the American side of the story is told. No description of the experiences of the British, French, Russion, or German people is provided. This surprised me, given how much consideration was provided to the Confederates in Burns's prior work "The Civil War." I appreciate the need to limit the scope of the project, but I feel that a little more depth on some of the non-American subjects would have enhanced the overall picture.

All of this criticism aside: This film is perhaps the single most complete description of the American experience at America's defining moment. It's amazing how four moderately sized cities managed to have representatives at nearly every major event in the war, which shows what an all-encompassing event World War II was. Burns managed to effectively balance the experiences of the military servicemen - the battles that typically define a war - and the perhaps equally important experiences of their friends and families back in the city related to the war - the supply rationing, the shift in industrial output, and the emotional strain known as the "home front."

Credit should be given to Burns for not shying away from the well-documented horrors of war. Brutal, graphic, disturbing pictures are shown in full color without any censoring. Some of the interview subjects describe their awful physical and emotional experiences, often in horrific and indelible detail. None of it is shined or candy-coated or softened or twisted into some kind of patriotic message. I will never forget the story of one widow who received the telegram informing her of her husband's death. Although this could have been turned into a message about patriotic sacrifice, Burns instead leaves an eerie silence after describing the widow's "unearthly howl."

Personally, I appreciated the significant amount of time given to the air war of the European theatre, which Burns focused especially on the experiences of B-17 bomber crews. WWII documentaries tend to focus on ground battles because they are easier to document and recreate, but the fact is that the bombing campaign over Germany crippled (if inefficiently) German industry, which directly provided the Allies a critical advantage during the invasion of Europe. (My own personal stake - my grandfather was a B-17 pilot in the Army Air Corps - 8th Air Force, 100th bomb group.)

To conclude: "The War" may be the single best overarching documentary of WWII, a cornerstone of the modern American culture. It is limited in scale to only include the American perspective and involvement in the war, and it is limited in scope to focus on only the involvement of the citizens of four American cities. Despite these necessary limitations, the film manages to include every major campaign and battle in gritty detail. There may be better documentaries about individual aspects of the war, but it is hard to imagine a documentary that better encapsulates the entire American experience known simply as "the War."

2012

Directed by: Roland Emmerich

Written by: Roland Emmerich, Harald Kloser

With the Mayan calendar fast approaching its end in 2012, it was inevitable that the film industry would try to capitalize on people's fears of mortality. In this case, disaster film expert director Roland Emmerich was picked to put together perhaps the ultimate catastrophe movie.

The end of the world-as-we-know-it begins when a solar flare sets off some kind of chain reaction which will cause the earth's crust to shift dramatically. International governments (including the American president played by Danny Glover) decide not to tell, but instead begin a secret project to attempt to save the human race. Meanwhile, most normal people (including John Cusack cast, oddly enough, as a chauffeur) begin to notice that weather disasters, such as tornadoes and earthquakes, are happening more frequently and with more intensity. Eventually, the civilized world begins to crumble as a chosen few desperately try to reach the international safe-haven in China.

There is a lot that goes wrong in this movie (and I'm not talking about the disasters), but let's start with the good.

Woody Harrelson. Woody Harrelson plays a back-woods government-conspiracy fearing lunatic radio broadcaster who tips off John Cusack's character that there may be more going on than meets the eye. Harrelson's character is by far the most fun and interesting, and it's unfortunate that he ends up with so little screen time.

Now on to what's wrong with this film - everything else!

To begin, the movie is entirely too long. Coming in at over two and a half hours, the movie is unnecessarily bloated and drags on far to long at many points. Some suggestions on how to cut? Start with the absurdly large cast. There are too many characters that the film tries to follow, and by the end the audience doesn't really care about any of them. For example, the entire subplot about the Russian billionaire's mistress having an affair with his pilot could be cut - it adds nothing to the film whatsoever, but consumes at least ten minutes of screen time. The same with the subplot about the scientist from India - not sure what he's doing in the movie at all.

Now, usually, when one goes to see a disaster movie, they expect to see some whopping special effects. Usually. Apparently Emmerich (who otherwise has a pretty good track record) missed the memo on this one. The special effects were underwhelming and unimpressive, and, after a while, repetitive. There are only so many "giant earthquakes toppling skyscrapers" sequences that a person can see before they lose their meaning. (One highlight, though, was the scene in which Cusack's car is being chased by a collapsing LA freeway - instant classic moment!)

The movie seemed to overlap and repeat itself too many times. It's easy to lose track of how many times someone says "It's happening sooner than expected" (or something along those lines). And there are three - literally three - scenes at an airport in which a plane has to take off in the midst of disaster on the runway. Sure, they happened at different airports, but a little variety in the disaster drama might have gone a long way.

Typically, I enjoy these types of movies for what they are. But in this case, I'd just had enough by the end of the movie. I'd only recommend this movie if you can't see any of Emmerich's other epic disaster movies. For what they're worth, "The Day After Tomorrow" and "Independence Day" give a much better bang-to-buck return. Sorry "2012" - maybe you'll be more exciting next year, but I'm not holding my breath.

The Thousand Autumns of Jacob de Zoet

It's hard to describe David Mitchell's writing without falling into hyperbole. I will simply say that I think that he is one of the greatest living novelists in the English language, and leave it at that. His most recent book, "The Thousand Autumns of Jacob de Zoet" demonstrates the creative and imaginative power of his writing, even when his work is grounded some minor details of history.

The title character - Jacob de Zoet - is a young man assigned to help weed out corruption in Dejima, the exclusive trading post the Dutch hold in Japan. He originally joined the Trading Company while saving money to woo his lady-love back in Europe, but when faced with the grim realities of institutionalized corruption, he essentially becomes marooned in Dejima. Meanwhile, a Japanese midwife, whom he has developed feelings for, mysteriously disappears into a secret monastery. Trying to stay true to his original idealism is tough, especially when faced with cultural isolation, finding out the horrible secret of the local monastery, and - oh - a British warship demanding the unconditional surrender of the trading post.

It's hard to get into the intricacies of what makes Mitchell's novel so great without ruining what are a lot of great plot twists. Of course, this leads me to the first thing that makes this novel so great: the plot. Each of the three parts of the book are distinct from one another in terms of style and structure, but all are woven together through the characters.

--The first section of the novel follows Jacob de Zoet exclusively as he acclimates to the daily grind in Dejima. Being so far from his homeland, Jacob struggles to remain true to his idealistic ambitions: he is tempted by the potential profits from joining the corruption he intends to stop, and he dances near infidelity as he falls for the lovely, if scarred, Japanese midwife. This second ends as Jacob watches the Orito (the midwife) carried away, seemingly against her will, to a secretive local monastery.

--The second second section shifts entirely away from Jacob's story and focuses instead on Uzaemon, a translator, and his doomed attempt to rescue Orito when he finds out the monastery's horrible cultish precepts. Rather than the interior character study of the first section, the second part of the book is more action driven.

--The third section bounces around from character to character. At one point, it's even told from the perspective of one of the servants in Dejima. It is about halfway through this section that the intricate web that Mitchell has woven begins to come together, although the presence of a British warship threatens to blow the whole business to splinters.

Mitchell is a master of the little and not-so-little details and textual features that raise his novel to the highest levels of literature. One that comes to mind, is the constant presence of the stone strategy game Go. Understanding the game of Go - in which players place black and white stones on a grid to try to out-maneuver and capture enemy pieces - is critical to unlocking so much of the novel's complexity. One of the key characters, Lord Abbott Enomoto - leader of the monastery - is repeatedly seen playing Go. Meanwhile, he, and the other political figures in Nagasaki, are playing a game of Go with each other, constantly trying to "capture" political influence on one another. Uzeamon plays, and loses, when he attempts to "capture" Orito back from Enomoto. Jacob and Penhaligon (captain of the British vessel) play a deadly game of Go in the final confrontation. Some of these moments of strategy and tactics are interpersonal, while some are played out on a much larger scale. There's also the fact that the pieces in Go are black and white - suggesting a contrast between good and evil - which implies a lot when that is applied to the characters and situations in the book that relate back to Go.

The shifting perspectives in the novel, although superficially spice up the novel, support the underlying meaning of the novel, as well. As the plot becomes more chaotic and intense, the point of view shifts more and more often. This would be simple enough to increase the dramatic effect, but Mitchell uses it to also enhance the reading experience. At some points, through free indirect discourse, the reader is aware of what certain characters are thinking. But, at other points, the reader is left completely in the dark. At one point, jumping between two separate locations - the perspective shifts just before a critical moment, leaving the reader and the characters wondering why something happened. (I have to be a little vague here or it will essentially ruin the climax.)

On top of all this, Mitchell's attention to historical detail in this novel is well documented. To start, the presence of Dejima in Nagasaki as Europe's only trading post with an otherwise culturally isolated Japan is based in history. The British siege of Dejima, part of the novel's dramatic rising action and climax, is also based relatively accurately on a historical event. It has been reported that Mitchell lost whole days of writing while doing research for a single sentence about a minute historical detail. (The example of this recorded on Wikipedia is Mitchell trying to determine whether a character would have used shaving cream or not.)

To sum it all up (which I should have probably done long before now): "The Thousand Autumns of Jacob de Zoet" is a masterful piece of fiction which somehow (perhaps uniquely) balances between historical fiction and postmodern playfulness. I highly recommend it with the caveat that although the first chapters may seem dry, there are details contained therein which are critical to later sequences in the book. For those interested, based on my own somewhat limited reading, this is possibly Mitchell's most accessible book, and may be a good place to start.

Good luck, and happy reading! Seriously - enjoy this book because rarely does a reader find a book of this caliber. I'm relatively confident in my feeling that David Mitchell's work will prove to be some of the more lasting pieces of this age and era of literature. My words of recommendation here pale in comparison to Mitchell's work itself. (There goes that hyperbole again...)

The Graveyard Book

The most common description of Neil Gaiman's "The Graveyard Book" goes something like this: "An adaptation of Kipling's "The Jungle Book" set in a graveyard." And rightfully so. The fact is, that's what the book is. But this book is so much more than that, so I'm glad we got that out of the way and can move on without much more fuss.

Here's a quick plot summary, mainly because I feel guilty analyzing the book without some type of background: The book follows the life of a young boy named Bod (short for Nobody) who, through strange circumstances which would spoil the book, ends up being raised in a graveyard. Of course, if the setting is a graveyard, then his adoptive parents must be ghosts and his guardian Silas is - well, we're not quite sure what Silas is, but it's heavily inferred that he's a vampire. Bod manages to grow up as part of both the world of the living and the world of the dead. Eventually, though, Bod's two world's collide.

Reading this book, I was amazed by the simplicity of the text itself at the surface level. It's simply enjoyable to read. The first page hooked me every subsequent page kept me engaged on multiple levels. I haven't read a "can't put it down" book like this in quite a while. I grew to love the characters and was needed to find out what happened to them next. Emotionally, there are a few touching moments - which is surprising given the novel's grim material.

Gaiman allows the reader (though Bod) to explore the world of the dead, creating his own mythology by synthesizing and adapting older paradigms. For example, it's clearly suggested that Silas is a vampire (doesn't go out during the day, technically undead, etc), but I'm not sure that the word "vampire" is ever actually used. This, then, allows Gaiman the freedom to give his characters his own twist while also grounding the story in a basic mythology. I was especially interested in the different types of graveyard haunts there are in the book, from the typical ghosts, to the undefined undead characters such as Silas and Miss Lupescu (a werewolf), to the ghouls beyond the Ghoul Gate, to the unblessed dead who - for various reasons - were buried without blessings or headstones. Each group could and could not do certain things, based on their status. Essentially, Gaiman created a class structure for the afterlife. How those classes interact, then, provides much of the entertainment of the book

In a perhaps a-typical structure, most of the novel is not driven by a single plot. Rather, it's a series of adventures connected by the protagonist and his unusual background. This model, though, allows Bod to grow as a character on his own and in his own interesting way. It's not until about halfway into the novel that the plot - how Bod came to live in the graveyard and it's implications - begins to take shape. After that, though, the novel becomes much more action driven and less character driven. Both halves, for being so different in form, manage to compliment each other masterfully.

The critical reception for the book has been (as far as I can tell) unanimously positive. And I have to agree. A few overly sensitive folks have pointed to the opening as being ultra-violent - which it is. The only defense, though, is that the violence happens off the page - we find out about the results of the violence, but there are no gruesome descriptions of harm being done. (It's similar to the famous ear-cutting sequence in "Reservoir Dogs" - everyone seems to remember an ear being removed, but a close viewing of that scene reveals that the audience never actually sees an ear being cut off.)

One critical response from a friend pointed to the ending - and whether or not Bod should have had any choice in what happens (he doesn't) - as a point of contention. I have to politely disagree, though, that Bod should have had any choice. The book is about growing-up (and I'm trying to avoid the pesky coming-of-age cliche here), and, as far as I can remember, no one had any choice in whether or not they grew up. One of the striking features of Gaiman's book is that, despite most of his characters being inhuman in form, they are incredibly human in their nature. As we grow up, we must come to terms with who we are and leave the fantasies behind. This process can be painful, and the outcome uncertain. And when we've grown attached to someone - as the reader has grown attached to Bod and his surrogate family - it can be especially challenging. But we don't have a choice, it has to be done, and we can only look to the future. That's why Bod has no choice at the end - it's not personal, it's life.

I highly, highly recommend this book. Go get it. Right now. It'll be completely worth it.

Thor

Director: Kenneth Branagh

Written by:

-Screenplay: Ashley Miller, Zach Stentz, Don Payne

-Story: J. Michael Straczynski, Mark Protosevich

Being totally upfront (as I always am, sometimes to a fault), I grew up absolutely loving the "Thor" comic books. I've always been fascinated with this hero-as-mythical-god character and his adventures. I've also easily been able to ignore the strange contradiction of an ancient Norse god somehow speaking Elizabethan english. But, to my point - I'm not sure that this review is completely unbiased. I don't care, but I thought you should know.

In the film, Thor (Chris Hemsworth) is banished from the kingdom of Asgard and has his powers stripped from him. Thor spends the rest of the movie trying to regain his powers. Unfortunately, without Thor in Asgard to keep his brother Loki in check, Loki has seized power and is up to his typical antics.

I absolutely loved this film. It managed to efficiently capture the energy and spirit of the comic books while also forging a new path for the character. Thor himself is exactly how I've imagined him for my nearly two decades of reading him. Loki is just as nasty as always, although I don't feel he received enough screen time to develop into the truly nasty villain that he should be. Even Natalie Portman's portrayal of Jane Foster was not as bad as I had imagined (although I'll never forgive her for what she did to the "Star Wars" prequels).

The visual effects were amazing, if a bit over-the-top. Asgard was visually stunning, although the CGI limited how many panoramic shots were seen, limiting most of the Asgard sequences to only a few locations. The Destroyer (unnamed in the film, for some odd reason) is terrifying in its destructive simplicity and managed to convincingly destroy basically an entire New Mexico town. My only fear, though, is that the effects are so grand that they won't translate well onto the small screen - but we'll cross that bridge when we get to it.

Most impressive was how well balanced I felt the film was between comic book surrealism and a basic adventure story. The battle with the Destroyer is a perfect example - the little New Mexico town had a great sense of verisimilitude, but the battle itself was straight out of a comic. It didn't feel too far out of this world as to disrupt my sense of disbelief, but it clearly wasn't realistic either.

There were definitely some pacing issues in the story. The movie spends quite a long time establishing and developing characters before anything meaningful happens in the plot. I suppose some of that fat could have been cut while still maintaining the core vision of the story, although the epic scope of the film might have been diminished.

Go see this movie now!