Game: Duke Nukem Forever (3D Realms/Gearbox Software, 2011)

After finally playing Duke Nukem Forever I asked, considering the substantial negativity around it, what exactly were gamers expecting? At no point does a game deserve the protracted development cycle afforded to this one and, as such, there were many expecting the gaming equivalent of the second coming of Christ. Yet, at the end of the day, it's just a Duke Nukem game and going in with that in mind, you're bound to enjoy it more.

For me it did exactly what I thought it would. Unlike some, I set my hopes at average, knowing full well that a game with THAT long of a development would never live up to its impossible expectations. What I was given was a game that was foul, violent, sexist and quite a bit of fun. It borrows heavily from every industry standard (melee executions, regenerating health bar, etc) and the visuals are sub par but to criticise a game like this for being foul, violent and sexist is like lambasting Transformers for being dumb. It doesn't raise the bar, it straddles it whilst shouting "YEEEEE HAAAAARR!!!"

It is what it is. To say "leave your brain at the door" is redundant as it's what's expected from Duke Nukem. It's no masterpiece but, then again, it was never meant to be. Turn it on, have a giggle and don't take it too seriously. You may even find you enjoy it. I did.

3/5

Film: Big Fish (Tim Burton, 2003)

If Big Fish tells us anything, it's that Tim Burton can make a commercially viable product that doesn't sell out and plays to all of his strengths. In fact, compared to the rest of his back catalogue, Big Fish is the most un-Burton Burton film to date. Gone is the gleeful darkness of the likes of Batman or Sleepy Hollow and in it's place we get heart-felt drama in the guise of a bigger than life family film.

It's something I would like to see Burton do more of as he shows that he has the ability to instil genuine uplifting emotion from a subject that is ultimately quite upsetting. The core relationship between Albert Finney and Billy Crudup is fascinating and whilst there will be those that'll well up during the finale, the journey there, as well as the satisfactory conclusion to a the father/son dynamic, leave you basking in a state of great joy and fulfilment.

Big Fish is the crowning achievement of a director that has made his name as being somewhat off kilter. It just goes to show that, when he wants to, Tim Burton can be more than just a one trick pony. Big Fish really is his finest film to date.

5/5

Book: Our Kind of Traitor (John le Carre, 2010)

I'd be lying if I said I wasn't disappointed by Our Kind of Traitor. With my excitement over all things Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy at it's height, I will admit that it was my foolish assumption that all things John le Carre were gold. But whilst Tinker Tailor (the book) is one of the finest thrillers I've ever read, it seems obvious now that any other le Carre novel I'd try so soon after would be weak in comparison. So lets just get it out of the way: Tinker Tailor is excellent. Our Kind of Traitor isn't.

That's not to do the novel an injustice. For all intents and purposes it's perfectly fine, with the same level of intrigue and meticulous plotting that le Carre is now famous for. The problem is, it's just not that interesting. Concerning a couple being roped into aiding a defector (a Russian banker to the worlds most prominent criminals), the set-up is terrific. As key plot points are told in flashback via interrogation of said couple, the pieces of the puzzle are drip-fed to the reader before revealing the devastating implications of the plot in full force. This interrogation takes up the first half of the book and for this long at least, I was enthralled.

However, once the mission is executed, the book loses its edge. Oddly, this seems to be le Carre's stumbling block, as even a book as great as Tinker Tailor faltered during it's climax (literally the only part of the book where there is anything that could be construed as action). The story just coasts and after a set up as great as this novel has, it comes as a crushing disappointment. I guess I just found the execution lacked that great intrigue and cleverness that Tinker Tailor boasted, where every action of espionage was calculated and methodical. Here it's more chaotic and when the chase climax arrives it becomes apparent that le Carre really is out of his comfort zone.

In the end it falls to both his strengths and his weaknesses. When it works, it's excellent. When it doesn't it falls deathly flat.

3/5

Film: Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (Tomas Alfredson, 2011)

The last time I saw a film by Tomas Alfredson it was Let The Right One In, a slow, measured masterpiece about two kids becoming friends that just happened to feature vampires. It was also my favourite film of 2009. It just bowled me over. It is rare to find such a powerful film with so much restraint and whilst it's semi-art house sensibilities were likely to throw some, what Alfredson was able to do was create a character piece that was both thrilling and emotionally gratifying.

It comes as no surprise then that he has managed the same trick with Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy. As I stated in my review of the book, I have a huge love for old school espionage thrillers, and in the world of John le Carre's spies, there are no Jason Bournes or James Bonds. Much like the novel, the thrills come from heated exchanges and brilliantly executed covert ops that are at once exciting yet restrained. Set in the time frame of the novel (1973), there is no over reliance on technology, with the principal weapon being ones brain. Alfredson's minimalist approach works wonders with the material, allowing every beautifully crafted shot and sequence to flow effortlessly into one another whilst juggling the varying strands of the labyrinth narrative with an artists eye. Yes, there's a lot to follow but, considering how dense the source material is, the adaptation sticks rigidly to the main threads whilst somehow giving enough character development to allow a legitimate emotional attachment to the key players.

This attachment to the principals is helped in no small part by one of the greatest ensemble cast seen since The Godfather. Whilst Oldman as Smiley is the obvious frontrunner, everyone is on top form. There are no stars here as such, just the best character actors in the business including the likes of Toby Jones, Tom Hardy, John Hurt and Colin Firth, each giving their character an individuality no matter how small the part. It's hard not to hate Jones' Percy Alleline or fall in love with Hardy's loveable rogue Ricky Tarr. Yet the surprise comes from Oldman who, having made a career on intense, flamboyant performances, dials it back to the same minimalist restraint of the film. Smiley's strength is his brain and whilst this is a complete contrast to the most famous of fictional spies (James Bond), it is just as exciting watching veteran agent piece the conspiracy together from the comfort of his safe house. Yet he is human and through flashbacks it becomes apparent that, for all his strength, he is also vulnerable.

London through Alfredson's eye is a dank, dark and miserable place that is permanently polluted with the acrid stench of decay. It's easy to say it's appropriate considering the setting (every character smokes like a chimney) yet the aesthetics are resonant of the film's themes of betrayal and distrust. It is Alfredson's ability to use the mis-en-scene as a narrative device that makes Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy a masterpiece.

Cold but engaging, bleak but fulfilling, it is a great, great film.

5/5

Book: The Good, The Bad and The Multiplex (Mark Kermode, 2011)

With It's Only A Movie, Mark Kermode gave us a brief insight to his life via the silver screen. Effectively a book of anecdotes, it was both informative and very funny and if you're a fan of the dementedly opinionated critic (I mean that in the nicest possible way as I am a huge fan), it was a must read.

His follow up, The Good, The Bad, and The Multiplex follows a similar structure but rather than ranting about his personal life, he is now ranting about modern cinema as a whole, again by way of witty anecdotes and staunch opinions. It is also just as funny. Only Kermode could possibly deduce that Marlon Brando's acting style is no different from Ron Burgundy reading the news (a moment that had me howling) and only Kermode could get so het up about off centre framing when watching Charlie St, Cloud (NOTE: I have to agree with him on this. Is it really THAT difficult to ensure that the top of the frame isn't cut off? All it takes is a quick tweak to make sure the picture FITS THE BLOODY SCREEN).

Yet what he touches upon here is something that I, as a film fan, happen to find just as frustrating. Cinemas (well, the multiplex at least) and movies these days are pretty much just lacklustre factories continuously spewing out sub-par guff whilst the paying public are just sheep to be herded like drones from one screening to another. In the wake of movies like Inception (a film I have positively ranted about on the blog many a time), it proves that movies can be smart whilst delivering pulse-racing action and that it doesn't have to be a remake, a reboot, a sequel or in 3D. Between giggles I found myself agreeing with much of what he said, which, ironically, made me all the more frustrated. If a lauded film critic can see the problem, why can't more of the film-going public?

I find that Kermode is very much Marmite: you either love him or you don't (my girlfriend finds him insufferably irritating). If, like me, you're a fan, get a copy of his latest. In the words of Empire magazine, film criticism is rarely as fun as Mark Kermode.

4.5/5

P.S: I will be heading to Harbour Lights Cinema in Southampton on 01/10/2011 for an evening with Dr Kermode as part of his book tour. Expect article in due course.

Film: Friends With Benefits (Will Gluck, 2011)

I find that with every chick flick I see I invariably compare it to Bridget Jones (the original movie, not the shitty sequel). That was a film that managed to be an unashamed chick flick but somehow managed to elevate itself above the norm by being both charming and utterly hilarious whilst nailing the tone of the romance to avoid on-the-nose schmaltz, a trapping for about 99% of all romantics comedies.

Friends With Benefits has the charm but lays the schmaltz on thick, so it falls somewhere in the middle. Predictable to the end (watch the trailer and you've seen the film), I will admit there were moments that I laughed quite hard. Kunis and Timberlake can do comedy with their eyes closed and had their roles been played by any other young actors, the movie probably wouldn't have worked as well (saying that, cameos from Emma Stone and Adam Sandburg are also welcome).

But in the end it's all been seen before. Rom-coms like this are a dime a dozen and pumped relentlessly from the same moulds. Despite being funny, it literally does nothing to elevate itself above the norm. It's a shame really as the first half had promise right before the schmaltz gets slopped on, ironic really, as it falls into trappings that they ape earlier in the film.

3/5

Film: Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer (John McNaughton, 1986)

On the outset, despite it's name, Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer (HPOASK) isn't quite as extreme as one might expect. The last time I did an Extreme Cinema week it featured such films as Audition and Zombie Flesh Eaters, which are films that push the boundaries of taste. Whilst HPOASK is by no means a nice film, it is never as in your face or confrontational as you'd expect from a film billed as being so extreme. But that's kind of the point. The violence is explicit and uncomfortable but the master stroke with HPOASK is its ability to make the audience sympathise with a character that is, for all intents and purposes, a despicable creature.

There are a number of things that work in the film's favour, not least of which is it's limited budget. This is the filmic equivalent of a garage band, with the film makers using whatever money they can scrape up to make the film work. It literally looks as though it's held together with spit and glue, which, whilst feeling a tad cheap (something that is unavoidable), adds to it's effectiveness. It feels seedy, dirty and nasty, with the muted direction adding a stale aesthetic that not only refuses to gloss over the subject matter but emphasis its bleakness and reality. Henry isn't Freddy Kruger or Jason Voorhees, he's you neighbour, the quiet man next door who is polite but oddly chilling.

This may go on to explain why brother & sister Otis and Becky are drawn to him. By the time Becky comes to visit, Henry and Otis are room-mates who spend their evenings watching shit TV and drinking beer. It's only when Henry kills a prostitute with Otis present that they become killing pair, a fact that remains oblivious to the naïve Becky, who falls for Henry's supposed quiet vulnerability. Yet despite knowing what atrocities the pair commit, it is Otis who effectively becomes the main antagonist. The casual nature in which the violence is instigated is chilling yet Henry has his own morals. In Otis, however, it is clear that his initial misgivings at Henry's indifference to murder make way for a full blown monster. Henry has unlocked a beast that ironically leads to the eventual downfall of the principal characters. During the infamous house invasion sequence (brilliantly shown via camcorder footage the pair are watching after the fact in the comfort of their own home), both Otis and Henry take sadistic pleasure in tormenting and molesting their victims (husband, wife and son respectively) yet Henry immediately turns aggressive when Otis begins molesting the corpse of the woman.

And this is where HPOASK gets it's nastiness from. Every act of violence is repugnant and reprehensible yet somehow the objections Henry has over the sexual desires of Otis compels the audience to feel one type of violence is more repulsive than another. It's an interesting dilemma posed by the filmmakers, one that is subtly confrontational. Does one killer's dislike for sexual violence make his own acts of violence ok? The answer is, of course, no but so successful is the film's ability to blur the lines between good and bad that, come the ambiguous yet totally obvious final shot, you legitimately feel disgusted that you ever felt sympathy for a man and evil as Henry. Again, during the home invasion sequence, we aren't initially shown that the killers are watching their own footage. It's only as the camera slowly pulls back that we become attuned to this, making the audience complicit in the killer's own enjoyment in watching the violence unfold.

Otis may be the obvious mad-man but Henry is cold and calculating and the film-makers deliberately encourage the audience to empathise with him. Doing this makes Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer a film that is morally vacant (not to be confused with being morally reprehensible). There is no titillation, only one over-riding question: is it really ok to view violence as entertainment?

4/5