First, the website for the novel seems cool (I haven't looked at much of it, though): http://www.aleksandarhemon.com/
This book is supposed to be two intertwined narratives. The first is the story of Lazarus Averbuch, a Jewish immigrant who was shot by the Chief of Police upon entering the Chief's home with some sort of letter or document (we never find out what that paper is). The story, however, begins with the day of the shooting and focuses mainly on the aftermath through his sister, Olga. The second narrative is that of Vladimir Brik a Bosnian immigrant and a newspaper columnist who decides to research and write a book about Lazarus. The narratives take alternating chapters with some information about Lazarus showing up in Brik's chapters.
My first concern with the book was the tone and language. The narrator of the Lazarus sections takes what could be a tongue-in-check tone by calling Lazarus an anarchist every few sentences or so. But then this is dropped without any explanation or conclusion so I'm not sure if the tone was, in fact, tongue-in-check or if it was heavy handed moralizing. Some of the language of the book was a little contrived. At one point Brik wants waffles for lunch, can't have them, and then "waffles" over the burger he ordered for lunch. That's a little much. The author is not a native English speaker but he has published in English before and he won an MacArthur genius grant which should indicate he knows the language he's writing.
My second concern was the length of the chapters as they relate to each narrative. Brik takes up most of the page count but I wanted more information about the murder--which is the topic of his book-to-be.
Then there are a few concerns rolled up in one--and this is where some plot details will be divulged so stop here if you don't want spoilers. The murder is never resolved but, more importantly than that, the accusations of anarchy are never resolved, we're never offered even a hint of a resolution, we never know why Lazarus went to the Chief's house . . . . All we know is the ordeal Olga had with the police and that she grieved Lazarus but went on with her life. Brik's life is also never really resolved. He is having imaginary trouble with his wife--as in he often imagines her leaving but we're given nothing to indicate that she might leave--and then decides at the end of the book to stay in Bosnia (which he was visiting as his homeland and as research because it was Lazarus's homeland) instead of returning to her. These two unresolved narratives attempt to answer each other in a forced manner. Brik gets to return "home" in a way Lazarus never could (in body or spirit because of a botched burial). A life-long friend of Brik's (who travels with him to Bosnia) is shot seven times--the same number of shots that killed Lazarus. Both the friend and Lazarus are raised from the dead by stories and art--the former told wild tales about his life and took photos and the latter wanted to be a novelist and was the subject of a novel (presumably, we never know if Brik actually writes the book). There is a mother-figure woman in all three of their lives (Lazarus, Brik, and the friend--sister, wife, sister). And these are just the points I can remember right now.
All in all, the book was a disappointment. It was a clever idea but the attempts to connect the contemporary and past narratives proved too much for the basic structure to handle. The book starts off well and is interesting but then gets too interested in its own games and tricks to sustain itself or be profound the way it could have been.
The book is interspersed with photos that are sometimes connected and interesting and sometimes not so much.
I'm not sure why you'd read this. If you're particularly interested in Bosnian Americans, need to read every example of Emma Goldman showing up in literature, or are especially concerned with retellings of murders . . . . maybe. But know that while it's not completely terrible it's not the best book ever.
Monday, June 30, 2008
Wanted (2008)
This is a visually stunning movie. The special effects are wonderful, the cinematography is interesting, and Angelina Jolie is her usual hot self. That's about the extent of the positive.
I'll admit that I was entertained. I liked watching the film. But, you can't ask any questions about it because once you pull on one thread, the whole damned thing comes unraveled.
The premise is interesting. A young man is swept out of his boring job and into a life of an assassin. He's inherited a super-strength of sight and the ability to curve a bullet (the latter may be something that can be taught but it's not clear). He's brought in, supposedly, to avenge the death of his father but--stop reading here if you don't want any spoilers--surprise, surprise, that man was actually not his father. Instead, the head of the fraternity of assassins who have taken him in have sent him to kill not the man who killed his father but his father. This is not surprising. What is also not surprising is that the head of the fraternity (Morgan Freeman) is not a good guy. He manipulates the "loom of fate" (that's right, the loom of fate--I can't make that up) so that the people assassinated are those he needs out of the way for one reason or another--but we're never given any of those reasons. Soooooooo, Mr. new assassin decides to eliminate the head of the fraternity, getting revenge for his father's death, and bringing the fraternity back around to morality (as much as a frat of assassins can be moral). This backfires (sort-of) when the head of the frat tells Mr new guy and a group of the assassins (including Jolie and Common) that all of their names came up on the loom of fate. Mr new guy's explanation that the head has manipulated the loom does not stop Jolie from shooting a bullet around the circle, hitting all of the assassins including herself but leaving the new guy alive. That doesn't so much make sense because 1. Jolie doesn't know whether she's actually obeying or defying the loom, and thus fate, by killing all of them, 2. she doesn't kill the head which means he can train some new thugs, 3. she doesn't kill the new guy which means she hasn't carried out her last assignment of killing him and, thus, defies the loom and fate.
That's just the major problem with the end. The whole of the movie is riddled with holes. The morality of the movie is questionable--the morality it wants to have, not one I'm trying to impose. The philosophical aspects are skewed to the point of no return. The timeline seems questionable. One man at the beginning has some sort of superhuman jumping ability but we never get an explanation nor do we see that sort of ability--or any other save the sight--again in the film. And that's all if you can suspend belief that you can curve a bullet, that you can have super sight that allows you to slow down what you're looking at, that cars can actually do what they do in the film without some sort of apparatus, that there can exist a super elixir that heals broken bones and bullet holes and bruises etc, that James McAvoy could actually be as assassin much less achieve the physique he does in six months . . . . . .
See it because the special effects are cool, because you like Jolie or Morgan Freeman, just don't ask any questions of it and you'll be ok.
I'll admit that I was entertained. I liked watching the film. But, you can't ask any questions about it because once you pull on one thread, the whole damned thing comes unraveled.
The premise is interesting. A young man is swept out of his boring job and into a life of an assassin. He's inherited a super-strength of sight and the ability to curve a bullet (the latter may be something that can be taught but it's not clear). He's brought in, supposedly, to avenge the death of his father but--stop reading here if you don't want any spoilers--surprise, surprise, that man was actually not his father. Instead, the head of the fraternity of assassins who have taken him in have sent him to kill not the man who killed his father but his father. This is not surprising. What is also not surprising is that the head of the fraternity (Morgan Freeman) is not a good guy. He manipulates the "loom of fate" (that's right, the loom of fate--I can't make that up) so that the people assassinated are those he needs out of the way for one reason or another--but we're never given any of those reasons. Soooooooo, Mr. new assassin decides to eliminate the head of the fraternity, getting revenge for his father's death, and bringing the fraternity back around to morality (as much as a frat of assassins can be moral). This backfires (sort-of) when the head of the frat tells Mr new guy and a group of the assassins (including Jolie and Common) that all of their names came up on the loom of fate. Mr new guy's explanation that the head has manipulated the loom does not stop Jolie from shooting a bullet around the circle, hitting all of the assassins including herself but leaving the new guy alive. That doesn't so much make sense because 1. Jolie doesn't know whether she's actually obeying or defying the loom, and thus fate, by killing all of them, 2. she doesn't kill the head which means he can train some new thugs, 3. she doesn't kill the new guy which means she hasn't carried out her last assignment of killing him and, thus, defies the loom and fate.
That's just the major problem with the end. The whole of the movie is riddled with holes. The morality of the movie is questionable--the morality it wants to have, not one I'm trying to impose. The philosophical aspects are skewed to the point of no return. The timeline seems questionable. One man at the beginning has some sort of superhuman jumping ability but we never get an explanation nor do we see that sort of ability--or any other save the sight--again in the film. And that's all if you can suspend belief that you can curve a bullet, that you can have super sight that allows you to slow down what you're looking at, that cars can actually do what they do in the film without some sort of apparatus, that there can exist a super elixir that heals broken bones and bullet holes and bruises etc, that James McAvoy could actually be as assassin much less achieve the physique he does in six months . . . . . .
See it because the special effects are cool, because you like Jolie or Morgan Freeman, just don't ask any questions of it and you'll be ok.
O Brother, Where Art Thou? (2000)
I don't know how I missed this one. I like the people in it. I like the premise. I've owned the soundtrack since the movie came out. But somehow I didn't see it until now.
I liked it very much. I caught bits and pieces of the Odyssey narrative but would like to re-read (or at least review the plot) of the Homer and then re-watch the film.
But, even without the Odyssey template, the movie is fun if maybe a tad predictable (especially concerning the treasure). That predictability doesn't make it any less enjoyable--if anything you can enjoy the movie more because you're not constantly trying to figure out what's going on and what might happen next. And, regardless of any of that, the film is a clever retelling of the Odyssey.
Anyway, I liked it a lot and will re-watch it soon (maybe even teach it if I get the chance) and I'll dig up the soundtrack if I can figure out which box it's in at the moment.
I liked it very much. I caught bits and pieces of the Odyssey narrative but would like to re-read (or at least review the plot) of the Homer and then re-watch the film.
But, even without the Odyssey template, the movie is fun if maybe a tad predictable (especially concerning the treasure). That predictability doesn't make it any less enjoyable--if anything you can enjoy the movie more because you're not constantly trying to figure out what's going on and what might happen next. And, regardless of any of that, the film is a clever retelling of the Odyssey.
Anyway, I liked it a lot and will re-watch it soon (maybe even teach it if I get the chance) and I'll dig up the soundtrack if I can figure out which box it's in at the moment.
Get Smart (2008)
I'm not sure why half of the critics thinks this movie is bad. It's absolutely not. Yes, it has a simple plot but, given the problems of movies with more complicated plots, it seems admirable that a simple plot can be entertaining and sustain the length. The acting is fun and well done. The film even acknowledges the absurdity of having Steve Carell and Anne Hathaway as age-mismatched love interests. It makes fun of itself while having fun.
The only small complaint I have is two instance of continuity screw-ups with Hathaway's shoes. But that's it. It's a wonderful movie.
The only small complaint I have is two instance of continuity screw-ups with Hathaway's shoes. But that's it. It's a wonderful movie.
Monday, June 16, 2008
The Greatest Show on Earth (1952)
The Greatest Show on Earth feels like four circuses piled up on each other, back to back performance of the most random acts (but not most interesting) ever. The film could have easily been about an hour long had they cut out the three times they show and tell us about how the actual physical components (tent, etc) are assembled and disassembled and transported, had they cut out the loooooooooooooong "parade" sequences (each of which contained at least one full song but normally more) in which all of the circus performers dress up in themed costumes as circle the inside of the circus tent, had they cut out the acts that we didn't need to see to further the plot or theme . . . . .
The basic plot is that Brad Braden (Charlton Heston) runs the Barnum & Bailey Circus and is in love with Holly (Betty Hutton) but, because he runs the circus like a business, is not so quick to woo her because she is a trapeze artist and, therefore, part of his business. Holly has finally earned the center ring and, of course, chalks this up to Brad's love as much as her talent. Meanwhile, he gets The Great Sebastian (Cornel Wilde) to play the show in order to save it from having to cut it's run short. The Great Sebastian, however, only plays the center ring. So, Holly gets mad at Brad, Sebastian uses this as a wooing point to try to get Holly, Brad dislikes Sebastian, and Holly uses it as a competition to earn the center ring back from Sebastian. Meanwhile, Angel and the Klaus, the elephant trainer, are in a perpetual back and forth about Klaus loving her and trying to own her while she likes Brad and has a history with Sebastian (as do, apparently, half of the women in the world). So when Holly goes for Sebastian, Angel moves in on Brad, and Klaus gets angry and hooks up with the crooks who have been trying to invade and take over the circus midway. Then Holly and Sebastian's competition results in Sebastian being stupid, taking a risk, and injuring his hand beyond repair (maybe). Holly feels guilty and pledges herself to Sebastian. The circus train crashes thanks to Klaus and the hoodlum trying to rob it, the circus materials are wrecked, some people are dead or hurt, and Brad is seriously injured, Sebastian is the only one with the same blood type. Holly takes over and organizes the circus where is crashed and gets the town to come to it--it's a success, she realizes her love for Brad and then Sebastian and Angel decide to get married. Oh right, and Jimmy Stewart is a clown, Buttons, on the lam from authorities after having killed his wife (in some never explained he was a surgeon, she was dying, you kill the one you love thing). He is outed when he has to save Brad and there is a cop on board looking for him--he has thus far avoided trouble by always wearing his clown make-up, even out of costume and while the other clowns are not in make-up. No one ever explains why this isn't questioned.
The plot isn't terrible. It's just fine, actually. What makes all of this so very tedious at over two and a half hours is all of the circus footage. It's just not needed and doesn't do anything for the plot. I wouldn't watch it again.
One funny moment: Bob Hope shows up in the crowd as a spectator.
The basic plot is that Brad Braden (Charlton Heston) runs the Barnum & Bailey Circus and is in love with Holly (Betty Hutton) but, because he runs the circus like a business, is not so quick to woo her because she is a trapeze artist and, therefore, part of his business. Holly has finally earned the center ring and, of course, chalks this up to Brad's love as much as her talent. Meanwhile, he gets The Great Sebastian (Cornel Wilde) to play the show in order to save it from having to cut it's run short. The Great Sebastian, however, only plays the center ring. So, Holly gets mad at Brad, Sebastian uses this as a wooing point to try to get Holly, Brad dislikes Sebastian, and Holly uses it as a competition to earn the center ring back from Sebastian. Meanwhile, Angel and the Klaus, the elephant trainer, are in a perpetual back and forth about Klaus loving her and trying to own her while she likes Brad and has a history with Sebastian (as do, apparently, half of the women in the world). So when Holly goes for Sebastian, Angel moves in on Brad, and Klaus gets angry and hooks up with the crooks who have been trying to invade and take over the circus midway. Then Holly and Sebastian's competition results in Sebastian being stupid, taking a risk, and injuring his hand beyond repair (maybe). Holly feels guilty and pledges herself to Sebastian. The circus train crashes thanks to Klaus and the hoodlum trying to rob it, the circus materials are wrecked, some people are dead or hurt, and Brad is seriously injured, Sebastian is the only one with the same blood type. Holly takes over and organizes the circus where is crashed and gets the town to come to it--it's a success, she realizes her love for Brad and then Sebastian and Angel decide to get married. Oh right, and Jimmy Stewart is a clown, Buttons, on the lam from authorities after having killed his wife (in some never explained he was a surgeon, she was dying, you kill the one you love thing). He is outed when he has to save Brad and there is a cop on board looking for him--he has thus far avoided trouble by always wearing his clown make-up, even out of costume and while the other clowns are not in make-up. No one ever explains why this isn't questioned.
The plot isn't terrible. It's just fine, actually. What makes all of this so very tedious at over two and a half hours is all of the circus footage. It's just not needed and doesn't do anything for the plot. I wouldn't watch it again.
One funny moment: Bob Hope shows up in the crowd as a spectator.
Mongol (2007)
Not the best movie I've ever seen but this one is very good. It's supposedly the "untold story of Genghis Khan" (implying his military history) but I think it actually ends up being more of a love story between Khan and his wife, Borte.
The movie is gorgeous. It showcases the steppes of Russia and Kazakhstan, the movie does the whole Lord of the Rings sweeping shots of the landscape but for less time and to greater effect. The actors and costuming is beautiful as well.
The acting seemed well-done to me. Being in a foreign language and about a foreign culture, it's sometimes hard to tell but I believed what they were saying/I was reading.
The basic storyline is that Temudjin is off to choose his wife, at age nine, from a distant tribe from which his father stole his mother (she was already betrothed at least, if not married). To make amends, Temudjin has to chose his wife from that tribe. The child, however, is entranced by a girl of ten who belongs to another tribe . . . everything falls into motion from there. I can't tell too much because it would give away specific plot points that are important as well as the motion of the plot. The movie did a fantastic job of showing how one thing leads to another. His whole life is laid out in morally complicated and ambiguous causes and effects. My favorite moment comes toward the end of the movie: Borte's response (and then, even better, Khan's response to her)to Khan's saying to his son, about the importance of choosing a good wife, "Didn't I choose your mother well?" A very sweet moment that I think wraps up the movie in a wonderful way.
I don't know enough about Khan to know if much of this is accurate in terms of history but it made a compelling film. It is a tad slow in moments and it runs just over 2 hours but I think it was well worth it.
The movie is gorgeous. It showcases the steppes of Russia and Kazakhstan, the movie does the whole Lord of the Rings sweeping shots of the landscape but for less time and to greater effect. The actors and costuming is beautiful as well.
The acting seemed well-done to me. Being in a foreign language and about a foreign culture, it's sometimes hard to tell but I believed what they were saying/I was reading.
The basic storyline is that Temudjin is off to choose his wife, at age nine, from a distant tribe from which his father stole his mother (she was already betrothed at least, if not married). To make amends, Temudjin has to chose his wife from that tribe. The child, however, is entranced by a girl of ten who belongs to another tribe . . . everything falls into motion from there. I can't tell too much because it would give away specific plot points that are important as well as the motion of the plot. The movie did a fantastic job of showing how one thing leads to another. His whole life is laid out in morally complicated and ambiguous causes and effects. My favorite moment comes toward the end of the movie: Borte's response (and then, even better, Khan's response to her)to Khan's saying to his son, about the importance of choosing a good wife, "Didn't I choose your mother well?" A very sweet moment that I think wraps up the movie in a wonderful way.
I don't know enough about Khan to know if much of this is accurate in terms of history but it made a compelling film. It is a tad slow in moments and it runs just over 2 hours but I think it was well worth it.
Saturday, June 14, 2008
The Incredible Hulk (2008)
I'm not sure why this movie is getting such mixed reviews--right now it has a 65% on RottenTomatoes. That's just not true. The movie is much much MUCH better than 65%. It's actually up there with Iron Man in my opinion right now. It's just a different sort of movie. This one is an action monster movie--but that's hard to get around when the main character turns into a big green monster who tosses cars around when he gets angry. I think you just have to own the monster movie aspect if that's the character you have. And, apparently to the critics dismay, that's what this movie does. It has great CGI and big explosive action sequences.
But, the acting is also good and the characters interesting, again despite what the critics say. I'll admit to being a big Ed Norton fan (despite some of his choices in films) but I am not a huge Liv Tyler fan and have no real affinity for William Hurt or Tim Roth. But they're all superb and very well cast. I didn't see the Eric Bana Hulk but I think Norton a better choice for Banner. The whole point of the Hulk story is to have this quiet, smart, unassuming, calm man burst into a huge violent alter ego when the least bit angry. That only works if the actor playing Banner isn't built and doesn't look sort of cocky (I like Bana just fine but he's better suited for Troy). Tyler does a good job of being simultaneously weepy and strong and understanding. You really think these two love each other and got the seriously short end of the stick in terms of their relationship. And the bad guys are wonderful as are the few morally ambiguous smaller characters.
The only teeny tiny complaint I had about the whole movie involves the CGI. It seems like Hulk is different sizes at different points in the film--specifically noticeably when he's in the cave with Betty and then when he and Betty are on the roof in the final battle sequence. I would have liked some explanation in the story rather than having to assume that the CGI is sloppy . . . .
But, super exciting, won't it be fun to have Hulk and Iron Man in a movie together?!
And, I LOVE the preview for Tropic Thunder with Robert Downey Jr. as a faux black man and the preview for the newest Mummy movie.
But, the acting is also good and the characters interesting, again despite what the critics say. I'll admit to being a big Ed Norton fan (despite some of his choices in films) but I am not a huge Liv Tyler fan and have no real affinity for William Hurt or Tim Roth. But they're all superb and very well cast. I didn't see the Eric Bana Hulk but I think Norton a better choice for Banner. The whole point of the Hulk story is to have this quiet, smart, unassuming, calm man burst into a huge violent alter ego when the least bit angry. That only works if the actor playing Banner isn't built and doesn't look sort of cocky (I like Bana just fine but he's better suited for Troy). Tyler does a good job of being simultaneously weepy and strong and understanding. You really think these two love each other and got the seriously short end of the stick in terms of their relationship. And the bad guys are wonderful as are the few morally ambiguous smaller characters.
The only teeny tiny complaint I had about the whole movie involves the CGI. It seems like Hulk is different sizes at different points in the film--specifically noticeably when he's in the cave with Betty and then when he and Betty are on the roof in the final battle sequence. I would have liked some explanation in the story rather than having to assume that the CGI is sloppy . . . .
But, super exciting, won't it be fun to have Hulk and Iron Man in a movie together?!
And, I LOVE the preview for Tropic Thunder with Robert Downey Jr. as a faux black man and the preview for the newest Mummy movie.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)