Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy

Nowadays it seems like the "spy" genre is filled with fast paced James Bond style action. But John le Carré's novel "Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy" is quite the opposite.

After a blown spy mission behind enemy lines, major shifts in power have taken place in the British spy agencies. When vague but relevant evidence reveals that there may be a Russian mole near the top of the British secret service, retired agent George Smiley is put on the job to investigate. And as Smiley gets closer to the mole's identity, he also gets closer to figuring out what happened on that blown mission and why he was forced into retirement.

The novel's plot is delicately paced, but executed perfectly. It's slow, but it is deliberately slow. The story unwinds - going back and forth through time - until everything has been revealed. To be honest, at times it can wear on the reader's patience, but when the truth is revealed the novel is redeemed.

George Smiley - through whose eyes we see most of the novel, indirectly - is an interesting character. He has his obvious weaknesses, but a keenness with which he uses those weaknesses to his own advantage (if that can be understood and believed).

The book is weakest in terms of its length. There are many sequences in which we're provided detail after detail. Some of those details become quite important, but it's hard to parse those out as you read. Instead, there are huge monologues and flashbacks that the reader must pay attention to, even if the reader is unsure what they are paying attention for. This perspective puts the reader in almost the same position as the protagonist - trying to pull out the meaningful details from a hodgepodge of rumors and hearsay.

In fact, the process of finding out who the spy is dwarfs just about everything else, even to the point that the big reveal - when we finally find out who the Russian mole is - is almost anti-climactic. (This isn't to say that the reveal isn't important or exciting, though.)

Overall, it's an excellent novel. It is unique and well written, and definitely a cut or two above the usual pulp spy novel.

Carnage

Directed by: Roman Polanski

Written by: Yasmina Reza, Roman Polanski

Based on Yasmina Reza's play "The God of Carnage," this film tells the story of two couples who have come together to settle a violent incident between their two children. But the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and things quickly turn sour between the two couples. Each character begins to suffer from various personal and emotional breakdowns as the dynamics of power and conflict continually shift, with the help of a few spontaneous moments (including one of the characters vomiting).

Personal and legal issues aside (and they are are to ignore), Polanski should be applauded for making such an emotionally intense film. The total running time is less than ninety minutes, but every minute is jam packed with tension. Adding any more length would have been more of the same.

As it is based on a play, the entire action of the film takes place in a single day within a single apartment. Polanski's use of close-ups and stationary cameras helps to enhance the claustrophobic effect. The characters pace around the rooms like animals in a cage.

Each of the actors does a fantastic job. Jodie Foster plays an uptight liberal mother better than any. (This is high praise, considering that I'm not a huge Foster fan.) John C. Reilly plays his usual slightly above-average Joe.

This movie is fantastic. It's hard to say I "enjoyed" it, but it is definitely worth seeing.

The Ides of March

Directed by: George Clooney

Written by: George Clooney, Grant Heslov, Beau Willimon

It's not too often that a good political thriller comes along anymore, but "The Ides of March" fills that need exceptionally well.

Stephen Meyers (Gosling) is an up-and-coming campaign strategist who has hitched his wagon to the presidential primary campaign of Governor Mike Morris (Clooney) because of Morris's take-no-prisoners and tell-no-lies style. But when Meyers is contacted by a rival campaign manager (Giamatti), it begins a chain of events that threatens to destroy Meyers's career and derail the Morris campaign entirely. It is in this face of adversity that the characters reveal their true selves and what they are willing to do to take power.

To start, the acting in this film is fantastic. Gosling is just about the weakest link, and it's merely because he under plays his part, which is a bit tough to deal with given that he's protagonist. Marisa Tomei's character of the nitty-gritty-political-journalist is completely unnecessary except to advance one minor plot hitch, but she does a solid job considering the minor role. Clooney and Giamatti are at the top of their game, as is Philip Seymour Hoffman.

What this film does exceptionally well, which has not yet been tackled by a modern political thriller, is show the workings of a modern campaign. Not since "Primary Colors" has a high-profile film tried to cover contemporary election tactics. And "Primary Colors" was based clearly on the Clinton campaign, but "The Ides of March" is not based on an actual campaign, although there are references and allusions to some recent strategies.

There movie does rely on a cliche plot twist at a major key point, which is rather disappointing. (I can't give it away here, as it is basically the climactic turn.) I just felt that with all the creative starts and turns, there could have been something more original to use at that point. To give credit, that one twist was predictable, but how that twist plays out and affects the story is more more effectively done.

Kudos to Clooney for making the film. It was effective and enjoyable.

Love Actually

Written and Directed by: Richard Curtis

I'm a bit behind on my blogging, so I'm only now getting to a film I saw in the days leading up to Christmas.

To start, I'm not a fan of movies with huge ensemble casts featuring piles of mega-stars. Most of the time they end up being incredibly massive puddles of puke. Typically, they pull their actors from as many different age and interest groups so as to attract the biggest audience as possible, while simultaneously watering down the plot and removing any drama to make sure that not a single person in the audience is offended or turned-off. (See: "Valentine's Day" and "New Years's Day.)

But, Richard Curtis's "Love Actually" is different. From the first time I saw it, it exceeded my wildest expectations and has now become annual viewing during the Christmas season.

There are too many different plots interwoven together for me to bother breaking down here. Suffice to say that all of them touch on the topic of love, although from many different aspects and angles. Present at different times throughout the movie are newfound love, unrequited love, love as inspiration, fading love, brotherly love, love for family, love across language barriers, and even youthful lust.

What makes "Love Actually" a great movie is that it somehow convinces you to like and care about all the characters. The characters are sincere and feel real, even if they are not necessarily believable. (Hugh Grant as the Prime Minister of England? No way!) The audience is drawn in to each character's desires.

The film also manages to avoid being overly dramatic, though one or two of the plots have some rather dramatic elements. Too often in these types of films, "plot" is confused with "life-changing drama," which can diminish a film if the card is played too often. Instead, "Love Actually" keeps the various plots fresh and moves them forward through smaller encounters and incidents. It was also nice to see how the different stories were woven together

I do have to say that the film does have some drawbacks. About 95% of the film is family-friendly, there is one story line which features nudity and pornography as a prominent element (though, to be fair, it is not pornographic in its essence). With so many plot-lines, a few of the good ones get relegated to secondary status or disappear from the film completely for a while.

Overall, though, it's a fun film, and it succeeds where other films of its type often fail.

Young Adult

Directed by: Jason Reitman

Written by: Diablo Cody

Overall, I tend to look at Jason Reitman movies with a bit of bitterness. Partially because I find his tone a simultaneously smug and whiny. Partially because they seem like the kind of movies I would make if I had his pedigree and position. And partially because they're a heck of a lot better than if I would have made them. In any case, I have to say that I was pleasantly surprised by his most recent film - "Young Adult."

The film tells the story of Mavis Gary (Theron), a young adult novelist seemingly one bad day away from a nervous breakdown. When she gets an e-mail announcement about her ex-boyfriend's new child, Mavis decides to head back to her hometown and try to respark the love they once had. But Mavis's homecoming romanticism is put in perspective by Matt Freehauf (Oswalt), who pushes her to accept reality, all leading to the dramatic climax.

To start: Both Charlize Theron and Patton Oswalt give performances are out-of-this-world (although Oswalt's character's geekiness may or may not be too far from reality for him). Theron is adeptly able to play her over-the-top character with a masterful subtlety. Oswalt is somehow able to be charming and repulsive at the same time.

I'm not going to say the film is perfect. It isn't. I wouldn't even call it "great with a capital G." But it's definitely an excellent example of some of the recent heights of independent film production, and is well worth seeing.

The Hunger Games

Written by: Suzanne Collins

It's rare that a book recommendation from my students actually lives up to the hype they establish for it. But, I have to say that "The Hunger Games" turned out to be more than worthy of its reputation.

Set in a dystopian future (as many "young adult" novels are), Katniss Everdeen is your average teenager in District 12 struggling to keep her fatherless family fed. But the annual Hunger Games put on by the domineering Capitol rip Katniss from her family and friends and force her into a literal game of life-and-death with only Peeta - a baker's son - as an ally. Will Katniss emerge victorious? Or will she become merely another casualty claimed by the Hunger Games?

For a young adult novel, this book is pretty darned good. It takes about sixty pages for the plot to gather much steam, but once it takes off it becomes hard to put down.

Without any intent of condescension toward young adult literature, it's important to keep in mind that this book is essentially a teen book. But it's a good teen book. Whereas the "Twilight" books often aim towards the lowest common denominator and veer off into cheesy drama and romance, I felt like "The Hunger Games" picked a higher target and hit the mark. Although there is a minor love-triangle storyline, the book focuses much more on its strength - the action-packed battle-royale.

I found Katniss to be an interesting character. She manages to stride a fine line between her femininity (compassion, affection) and her masculinity (aggressiveness, brutality). Simultaneously she is likable and strong while also flawed and powerless. Her confusion and frustration with her powerlessness in life effectively mirror and detail the same confusions and frustrations of adolescents.

I won't go on-and-on here. I recommend the book, as long as you know what you're getting into. It's not often that I praise a book like this, but in this case I feel it's earned.

Quantum of Solace

Directed by: Marc Foster

Written by: Paul Haggis, Neal Purvis, Robert Wade

With most film series, you pretty much know what you're getting by the third film. Although the writers and producers like to keep things fresh, the same holds true for "Quantum of Solace,"the twenty-second film in the 007 James Bond series.

This movie picks up right where it's predecessor (2006's "Casino Royale") left off. Bond (Craig) is in hot pursuit of the villains who killed the woman he loved. Along the way, he begins to unravel a plot to start revolutions by securing water supplies around the globe, all under the guise of environmentalism. The main villain is Dominic Greene (Amalric), an operative of the secret evil organization Quantum, who has been making deals to help military dictators in exchange for seemingly useless pieces of land, then forcing those dictators to accept Quantum's monopoly on water supplies. As usual, Bond saves the day, though the true designs of Quantum are never revealed.

I liked the fact that this film is a direct sequel, referencing specific events from "Casino Royale" and using it to develop the characters. Previous Bond films were linked by recurring characters, but the films tended to be isolated from one another. It was nice to see things that were established in the previous film - such as Bond's relationship with Felix Leiter (Wright) - carry over and have an effect on events in this movie.

I was struck by how visually beautiful this Bond film was. Some of the color schemes and cinematography were striking - especially the desolation surrounding the climactic confrontation.

The film is long and drags along at points, especially in the middle. So that's one in the "con" column. At several points, just as it seems like it's picking up momentum, it slows back down again. Some scenes felt excruciatingly long to reveal a plot point that could have been found some other way. In this case, I'm thinking specifically of the long air battle in the desert which eventually leads to Bond discovering the secret water reservoir.

Despite the somewhat choppy pacing, "Quantum of Solace" does manage to keep the tension very high. The stake-out at the opera house is a great scene with some fantastic cat-and-mouse drama mixed with small-but-effective.

You don't have to be a huge James Bond fan to enjoy this movie, but it will definitely help. "Casino Royale" is essential viewing first, though. I wouldn't recommend this as a starting-off point for Bond rookies, either.

Falling Down

Directed by: Joel Schumacher

Written by: Ebbe Roe Smith

Ever had one of those really bad days where nothing seems to go your way?

In "Falling Down," William Foster (Douglas) is having one of those days, but instead of moving on with his life, he's decided to act on violent impulses to get his way. In his attempt to see his estranged daughter on her birthday, he crosses Los Angeles taking out anything and everything in his path, from the liquor store clerk who over-charges for a can of soda to the fast-food cashier who won't serve breakfast a few minutes late. Meanwhile, LAPD Detective Prendergast is literally serving his last day before retirement, but decides to tackle Foster's case before he leaves, leading to a dramatic confrontation on the Venice Pier.

This movie is dark and scary in a gritty, realistic way, as though this is the kind of thing that might happen if the wrong person has a bad day.

The only major weak point is the subplot regarding Prendergast's wife being jealous of his female partner. At several points she pops up to bother him about coming home and not taking on any more work on his last day, but I'm not sure what exactly her role serves.

It's not a pleasant movie, but it's definitely worth watching for its uniqueness.

Captain America: The First Avenger

Directed by: Joe Johnston

Written by: Christopher Markus, Stephen McFeely

Oh Captain (America)! My Captain (America)!

The early part of the film is consumed with the back story of how puny Steve Rogers becomes the great Captain America (Evans), interspersed with the Red Skull (Weaving) rising to power. Later, when the super-soldier program is cancelled, though, Cap becomes a bond-selling sideshow, unable to fight the war he was made for. Ultimately, though, after proving his worth by rescuing some captured friends, he is recruited to destroy the super-secret evil HYDRA organization.

The Marvel comic book films have shown themselves to be solid productions, and "Captain America: The First Avenger" is no exception. But it does not strive to be anything more than what it is, and so it falls just a bit flat. I blame this partially on the character of Captain America - it's hard to create good drama with a character who is basically perfect. In fact, the point when the film dragged the most was when the filmmakers tried to artificially insert some personal drama into Cap's story with the whole war-bond side-show.

Overall, the classic tones of the film really worked. The styles and colors effectively created a world that reflected the comics of the time-period, giving a totally unique feel to the film. I really enjoyed this aspect of the film. It felt like a comic-book had come to life.

If you're the type of person that has enjoyed the previous Marvel films, then you're certain to enjoy "Captain America."

Red State

Written and Directed by: Kevin Smith

There's a lot I want to say about this movie, but very little of it is cohesive. Here goes anyway.

1. This film has two distinct halves. The first half is ostensibly a "horror" film, but the pacing slow and deliberate for that to work. The second half is more action-drama oriented, and better overall.

2. There was a lot of drama regarding Kevin Smith's strategies for funding and promoting this movie - most notably his attempt to auction it off at Sundance. That's all well-documented elsewhere. My only comment is that, although Kevin Smith may have felt he needed to be a bit of a showman to sell this movie, I feel that the movie was pretty darn good on its own.

3. By far, "Red State" is the most cinematic of Kevin Smith's films. The camera actually moves in some sequences (contrary to his usual stationary style), and some scenes use interesting angles to add to the effect. I mean, I'm not some kind of cinema snob, but as a Kevin Smith fan these changes and effects were very noticeable. It's nice to see him work outside of his comfort zone.

4. The climax of the film is fantastic. I can't comment on it much without giving it away, but I will say that it's not predictable. At all.

5. There are a couple of pretty gruesome sequences, though the actual gore is limited. Rather, it's the idea of what is being done which is what is most disturbing. This film is not for the faint of heart.

As a Kevin Smith fan, I recommend this movie. It's pretty good (hard to say "enjoyable"), though it does fall short of being great. Being prepared for the movie is key, especially knowing that the slow beginning pays off later, so keep that in mind.

Word Wars

Directed by: Eric Chaikin, Julian Petrillo

In the world of competitive Scrabble, who is the ultimate champion? This film, through its motley cast of players, tries to answer that question.

The best I can say is that this documentary is "ok." It's not a great film by any standard, but it is definitely entertaining. The relatively low production value hinders it at points, but the players featured (such as G.I. Joel - G.I. for Gastro Intestinal) help make up for it.

I wouldn't put this at the top of any list, but I can say that it's a good view for a lazy afternoon.