A Hologram for the King

Written by: Dave Eggers












Before going on, I wanted to take a moment to appreciate the cover of this book.  It's intricate and ornate and, simply put, beautiful.  From the moment you see this book, before you open a page, the book itself demands your attention and respect and, well, awe.

Eggers is a master, and he has created in "A Hologram for the King" another novel which, if written by someone else would be a masterpiece, but for Eggers is merely par for the course.

Eggers brings a straight and powerful tone to this novel, which gives the book a gravity which could have easily been lost.  There are points in the novel which border on surreal and could easily corrupt the story's core, but which Eggers handles effortlessly in stride.

The setting of the story manages to simultaneously call on several points of reference: it's both ancient and modern. Empty, but full of mystery. The other side of the world, but achingly familiar.

"A Hologram for the King" is powerful, and hearkens back to an ancient Greek tragedy while also firmly planting itself as a novel for its own time.

Following

Written and Directed by: Christopher Nolan












There's not a whole lot that can be said about "Following" without ruining some of the details, so - like the film itself - I will try keep this short and sweet.

An unnamed writer (Theobald) begins following people to help him develop characters for his novel.  But he is caught by a man named Cobb (Haw) who introduces him to the world of burglary.  The writer soon finds himself consumed the the philosophy and thrill of the break-in.  But, as his second career expands, he begins to find himself caught up in machinations of more powerful criminals.

"Following" is Nolan's first film, but in it he experiments with some of the storytelling devices which would become cornerstones of his later films.  The one that stands out the most is revealing the story in a non-linear fashion - showing how certain parts end before showing how they begin.  This is the central trope of "Memento," but it's used with great effect here as well.  The changes in sequence are not as clear in "Following" though, so it's important to use random details (haircuts, clothes, bruises) to help determine which part of the story is being told.  This device demands the viewer's attention, or the story will seem choppy and incoherent.

The movie's final reveal - which I won't tell here - is expertly set up.  By ending the film with such a twist, Nolan practically begs the viewer to watch the film again right away to try to fit the puzzle pieces together.  The "twist-ending" can be a bit cliche when not handled correctly, but Nolan uses it like a pro in his first try.

"Following" isn't a perfect film, but it's surprising how great it is.  Nolan already has his filmmaker's toolbox filled in his rookie effort, and uses those tools to make a great movie.

The Soloist

Directed by: Joe Wright

Written by: Susannah Grant (screenplay); Steve Lopez (book)










This movie sets out to tell the true story of journalist Steven Lopez (Downey) and his attempt to help rebuild the life of Nathaniel Ayers (Foxx), a dispossessed man who once had the opportunity to be one of the great cellists.  In that goal, it succeeds.

To it's credit, the movie does not reduce itself to sappiness.  There is a tendency in telling stories like this to gloss over the ending, to reveal some major change.  The struggling journalist learns the value of friendship and the need to help the homeless.  The musical vagrant returns to greatness at his instrument.  Instead, the ending is much more realistic.  There is no transcendent moment.  The characters have indeed grown, but the change is not monumental.  I appreciate that the filmmakers decided not to fit a trite conclusion onto the film - that was not the point.  They stayed loyal to the story (as far as I know it), even if that meant the conclusion does not satisfy in the usual sense.

My biggest disappointment in the movie was that I struggled to truly care about the characters.  They failed to come alive, but rather felt exactly like people playing out a story that had already been written.  I learned everything I needed to know about them from the trailer.  This is not the greatest performance by either of the leads, though, to their credit, I appreciate that both worked outside their usual character style and tried for something different.

"The Soloist" felt like a movie that had a lot of potential, but didn't live up to it in the way that it could have.  But maybe that's the point - the movie itself is about people not able to live up to expectations.  I'm not suggesting that the filmmakers intentionally produced a movie that fell short of goals, but rather that it is fitting that it occurred - whether intentional or not.  They tried for something different - to reveal something true, even if in their quest for veracity they opted not to resolve the problems of every character.

The Sting

Directed by: George Roy Hill

Written by: David S. Ward










There was a time when, together or apart, Robert Redford and Paul Newman could carry any film into greatness.  "The Sting" stands as the prototypical example of what they were capable of, without seeming to have to try that hard.  This movie belongs in that special category of films which are simply entertaining and magical, and I'm glad I got to see it at a special classic film screening.

The plot can be boiled down to this: Two lowly, but charming con-men decide to pull a fast one on the high-powered mobster who killed their friend.

Most of the film's charm is carried by Redford and Newman, who radiate attractiveness and allure (though there is a lot of doubt as to how realistic they might be compared to real con-men - but I digress).  Both actors are at the top of their game and bring their characters to life without much effort.  There's a lot that can be said about these two, but I'd rather you just experience it for yourself - it's truly amazing.

Robert Shaw also deserves credit for bringing the villainous card-cheating mob boss Lonnegan to life.  He serves as the perfect foil for the heroes without over-playing the part.  It's impossible for me to imagine this movie without him, perhaps someone else in his place.  He is just nasty and mean enough to earn the viewer's disdain, but not so cruel or awful as to be off-putting.

There are enough twists and turns to keep the story moving forward, and enough moments where a con is revealed to make it worth watching.  There are even a few "cons" pulled on the audience, but I won't spoil those here.  The movie does drag a bit in the middle, as the anti-heroes slowly set up their foil for his comeuppance, but the nature of the set-up necessitates this somewhat lengthy dry period.  When the con is played out, though, it's totally worth the wait.

Of course, no review of "The Sting" would be official without mentioning the background music.  The ragtime piano music helps to really set the film in its time period (not necessarily the most realistic - but still).  In fact, once you've seen the film, it's basically impossible to think of the movie and not get the music stuck in your head again.

"The Sting" is a classic movie, with great performances, great music, and a great story.  It's great, all around.

Punch-Drunk Love

Written and Directed by: Paul Thomas Anderson












It's pretty clear that Adam Sandler's career has taken a long public nose-dive.  (Albeit, a dive into a pile of money - a la Scrooge McDuck.  Or so I imagine.)  But "Punch-Drunk Love" reveals what might have been if Sandler had shunned the easy money and challenged himself with different roles.

The character of Barry Egan is, by far, Sandler's most complex role, even though the character's volatile  background is not much of a stretch from some of his earlier characters.  Egan is basically on the razor's edge of sanity, reading to break at any given moment despite his attempts to control his temper.  This trait is exacerbated by his sisters who refuse to let him forget some of his previous violent outbursts, even as they try to set him up with a romantic entanglement.  He obsesses over small details, and is secretly trying to take advantage of a loophole in a frequent-flyer program.  All of which leads to a breaking point when, in a moment of weakness, he calls the wrong phone-companionship line.  (Billy Madison - eat your heart out!)

The question becomes whether Sandler himself always has the potential he shows in this film, or whether it's Paul Thomas Anderson's masterful direction which forces Sandler to transcend his usual abilities.

Let's face it - Anderson does a great job with everything he does.  He has a magic touch.  The story of "Punch-Drunk Love" is incredibly simple - boy falls in love, makes mistake, tries to earn his love back. These elements often spell trouble - sailing waters littered with cliche and kitsch often appealing mainly to lovelorn teenagers.  But Anderson doesn't let his film stoop to that level.  In fact, the early introduction of the phone-sex storyline makes it very clear that this movie is meant for a more mature audience.  He raises this style of film to an art.  (And how do you know it's art?  Well, it features an appearance by Philip Seymour Hoffman, for one.)

One of the standout elements of the film is the constant tension.  I found my jaw clenching at numerous points and needed to pace around the room.  This is intensified by the pounding score (apparently written, at least in part, by Anderson himself) which relentlessly increases the pulse of every scene.  Every awkward moment is magnified to a potentially life-changing event.

I hadn't seen this movie in several years (and that was long before I took my movie-watching somewhat seriously or even knew what a P.T. Anderson was), but I remembered enjoying it.  Revisiting the film, it was actually better than I remembered it.

It's not a lightweight film.  But it's well worth the heavy-lifting.

They Might Be Giants

Directed by: Anthony Harvey

Written by: James Goldman










"They Might Be Giants" belongs to a special genre of film, in that it is neither terribly good nor terribly bad nor terribly memorable, but is mostly entertaining while being viewed.

I stumbled upon it, mainly by name, floating around my streaming options.  As a fan of George C. Scott (generally speaking), I figured it may be worth a shot.

Justin Playfair (Scott) has lost his marbles and is absolutely convinced that he is the one and only Sherlock Holmes.  When his brother (Gilford) tries to get him committed, he runs across a doctor named Watson (Woodward), and from then on the game is afoot!  But is Playfair crazy?  Or has he actually stumbled across a more sinister conspiracy that only he and his band of misfits can unravel?

This movie doesn't have a lot of heft.  It's cute.  It's charming.  But for the life of me, it's hard to remember.  There was a message, I'm sure, but I'm not totally sure I grasped it.  Still, for the length of the movie, I was totally caught up in it.  I couldn't stop watching.

There are lots of ethereal and ephemeral movies like this - the kind you watch once and never see again even though you kind of enjoyed it, only crossing your mind briefly, vaguely, whenever one of the actors is mentioned.  I'd name them, but if I could remember the names then they wouldn't actually belong to this category.

I wouldn't advise anyone to see this movie, but I wouldn't protest if someone else wanted to put it on.  It carries with it the magic of the movie experience, but so do all movies.

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire

Written by: J. K. Rowling












I'll save us all a lot of time and say, from the beginning, that this is the Harry Potter book I've been waiting for.  Over the first several books, I found the Potterverse to be entertaining and charming, but not particularly enduring.  The characters felt more like caricatures rather than people, and their adventures served little purpose beyond helping to open up the magical world.  But, with "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire," everything changes.

I'll try to keep the summary short: Somehow, Harry has been selected to participate in the Tri-Wizard Tournament, which puts his very life in danger.  On top of that, there are rumors of Lord Voldemort returning to power and his servants, the Death Eaters, have been starting to reveal themselves.  Could the two things be connected?  (Spoiler: They are.)

For the first time, I actually felt like Harry was in some real danger.  Harry was actually in harm's way and, without some well-timed luck, could have been killed.  This is a major development, as previously Harry's adventures had been mostly fun with little or no serious rick.  But not anymore.  Harry comes face-to-face with Voldemort, though their confrontation is cut short.

This is also the first book that felt like part of a series.  The first three books were mostly episodic, with recurring characters and settings, but not much else holding each story to the others.  In "...Goblet of Fire," the finale clearly sets up events to be continued in the rest of the series, while also developing the significance of elements from the earlier books.

I can see, how, how people become totally immersed in the Potterverse.  I struggled to find the will-power to start the next book immediately, and I'm keeping it close by for the first moment I can read it without revealing myself as a HP-newbie.