FILM REVIEW: A Separation

The Iranian film A Separation has received uniformly positive reviews from critics, sporting a jaw-dropping 99% rating on rottentomatoes.com (94% from the audience). It won the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film this year  for writer-director Asghar Farhadi and its screenplay was given an Oscar nomination in the Original Screenplay category (losing to Woody Allen's Midnight in Paris, despite Allen's alleged comment that he thought A Separation was the Best Film of the Year) despite all the dialogue of the film is in Farsi (There are English subtitles). It is considered the best-reviewed film release of 2011.

A Separation is an astonishing film achievement. The screenplay is truly outstanding, and as the New York Times notes (in a beautifully written rave review):

It is a rigorously honest movie about the difficulties of being honest, a film that tries to be truthful about the slipperiness of truth. It also sketches a portrait — perhaps an unnervingly familiar picture for American audiences — of a society divided by sex, generation, religion and class.

The partial split between Nader and Simin is only one of the schisms revealed in the course of a story that quietly and shrewdly combines elements of family melodrama and legal thriller. 

So what exactly is the film about? Well, it's centered around the marital difficulties of Nader and Simin, a middle-class Iranian married couple who have a teenage daughter named Termeh. Nader works at a bank, and his wife Simin appears to be either a teacher or a professor. The movie begins with the two of them confronting an Iranian magistrate and an emotionally taut scene ensues where we find out that Simin is trying to get a divorce from Nader so that she can go to the United States, which, after waiting for 6 months, she has finally received a visa that will allow the entire family to go. But, the visa will expire in 40 days and Nader insists that he can not leave his father, who has an advanced case of Alzheimer's Disease behind. Simin wants the divorce so she can take her daughter with her to America so she doesn't have to live in Iran "under these circumstances." Nader refuses to give permission to allow his daughter to leave with his future ex-wife, noting that the daughter is living with him, having been abandoned by her mother, who has left the marital home to live with her parents. What do you mean, "these circumstances" asks the disembodied voice of the judge, but Nader knows that she can not answer this question without communicating a non-implicit critique of the Iranian theocratic government, so she remains quiet. For the western audience watching the movie it is an astonishing feat by writer-director Farhadi that the Iranian censors left the scene in the movie presumably due to the plausible interpretation of Simin's comments that she was referring to the domestic circumstances of her home life, not the domestic circumstances of the her country. It is the ability of the movie to communicate subtle commentary on the immediate situation depicted in the movie while also communicating a critique of the Iranian system at the same time makes A Separation an absolutely thrilling experience. As Kevin Turan of the Los Angeles Times says in his rave review of the movie, "A Separation is totally foreign and achingly familiar. It's a thrilling domestic drama that offers acute insights into human motivations and behavior as well as a compelling look at what goes on behind a particular curtain that almost never gets raised."

The movie repeatedly and effectively uses this double lens to provide commentary on  several institutions in Iran, such as the  legal/conflict resolution system, the class divide, the role of religion in society, gender relations and the nature of "truth" and "honor." In addition, for Westerners to get a close-up view of the way regular Iranians live in the city of Tehran is absolutely fascinating. The first thing one notices is how similar and comparable life in Iran looks,with completely recognizable situations and living arrangements. A Separation is a brilliant example of the importance of foreign films to educate Americans about the way the rest of the world lives. The story proceeds through a masterful plot which cranks up the suspense and stakes like the ever increasing bindings on a corset, compressing the audience so that it becomes harder and harder to breather as the movie unspools. Through a series of perfectly reasonable, small mistakes in judgment and ill-considered actions, the stakes in a dispute get raised higher and higher until we are literally looking at a case of life and death from something which basically starts off as an employer-employee misunderstanding.

In the end, though, the movie returns full circle to the dispute around which all the other disputes that spiraled out of control revolved around: the separation of Simin of Nader. However, there is a child involved and in an echo of the great Kramer v Kramer the question of which parent will get child custody becomes central. The ending of the film left me and the Other Half discussing it for hours and days afterwards, as we tried to glean the future lives and decisions of the characters from the insight provided by Farhadi in his brilliant script.


This is a movie that will remain with you for a long time, and that you will enjoy tremendously while watching it and afterwards as well.

Title: A Separation.
Director: Asghar Farhadi.
Running Time: 2 hours, 3 minutes.
MPAA Rating: Rated PG-13 for mature thematic material.
Release Date: December 30, 2011.
Viewing Date: March 3, 2012.

Plot: A+.
Acting: A.
Visuals: A.
Impact: A+.

Overall Grade: A+/A (4.16/4.0).

BOOK REVIEW: Vernor Vinge's Children of the Sky

Two of the best science fiction books of the last few decades were written by Vernor Vinge. These are the classic titles A Fire Upon The Deep and A Deepness in the Sky (see MadProfessah reviews by clicking on the links.) These books were published in 1992 and 2000, respectively and are now generally described as being part of the Zones of Thought series. They both won the Hugo Award for Best Novel in the year of their release. Now, nearly 20 years after the first book in the series, Vinge has published a sequel called The Children of the Sky set in the exact same setting as A Fire Upon The Deep, with several of the characters from the earlier books returning, albeit in a time which is 10 years past the events in the first book.

Most fans are usually disappointed when a long-awaited sequel to a beloved book is finally produced. The reasons for this are unsurprising; in the intervening years both the audience and the author have both aged and changed and thus it is very difficult to recapture that spark which inflamed readers the first time. Happily, in the case of The Children of the Sky, Vinge is able to seemlessly drop us right back into the world he created with A Fire Upon the Deep decades before as if only a few moments had passed by.

The basics of the story are that a horrible disaster has befallen civilization. In Vinge's Universe there are Zones of space in which different levels of technology are possible. There is the Slow Zone, where faster-than-light speed is not possible due to the limitations on computational complexity and speeds, the Beyond in which FTL travel and communication is possible and the Transcend where the beings are so advanced they are for all intents and purposes Gods. These Zones of Thought are not sharp delineations and there is some variation even among the Zones. For example it's possible (and devastating) for planets to slip from one zone to the other, causing functional technological levels to vary by thousands of years of development in just a few seconds. In A Fire Upon The Deep a long-dormant evil intelligence (known as The Blight) is awakened in the Beyond and begins to cause unimaginable havoc to the civilized species who inhabit the Zone, resulting in the deaths of billions. A space ship carrying a few hundred children in "sleepboxes" (suspended animation) crashes on a planet and that story revolved around how the brother and sister Jefri and Johanna Olsndot survive their first contact with the intelligent species which inhabit the planet, called Tines World. The Olsndot siblings' parents were part of the scientific team that discovered and accidentally released The Blight into the Beyond. The Tines are 4-legged furry animals resembling dogs who communicate telepathically and through subsonic signals and when spatially close in groups of four or more form a group intelligence equivalent to humans. The Tines have a basic medieval form of society when suddenly they are exposed to the existence of modern technology from The Beyond. Additionally, a space ship (called Out of Band) from the Beyond lands on Tines World in order to rescue the children and get information on where the Blight came from in order to protect and save the rest of civilization from its devastating effects.

In The Children of the Sky, Tines World is now firmly in the Slow Zone and ten years have passed since the events of the A Fire Upon The Deep and most of the children who were in coldsleep have been awakened and are starting to form a society with the realization they may never get back to The Beyond and ever experience those familiar technologies again. One of the fascinating aspects of A Fire Upon The Deep (and A Deepness in the Sky) is the incredibly detailed and complex society that Vinge is able to produce, in a completely alien context. Here we have humans interacting with dog-like hive minds and the characters are drawn with such fully realized motivations and emotions that you are forced to empathise with them. Another feature of Vinge's writing is the ambiguity of his characters, especially his villains. In A Fire Upon The Deep it is not very easy to distinguish who the "good guys" are from the "bad guys" and it is a central tension of the book, which returns in the sequel Children of the Sky that just because we are getting a first-person perspective on events from a particular character does not necessarily mean that that character is a force for "good."  In fact, central to Children of the Sky is who gets to decide what is "good" or the best course of action for a group of people? How are those decisions made? There are (at least) two main factions and they both feel they are doing the correct thing for the Children and Tines World as a whole. Eventually it becomes clear that one faction is willing to commit horrific crimes (of violence, kidnapping and murder) to achieve its ends and so the reader (or at least This Reader) made a choice as to which faction to support. Then the tension is will the good guys win or will the bad guys win? This is quite a suspenseful question which basically kept me up reading until 5am to finish the book, and by the end several questions (but notably not all of them) are answered, which leads most observers and reviewers to think that there will probably be a sequel (or sequels) forthcoming.

Hopefully, it won't take another 20 years for Vernor Vinge to write it!

Title: The Children of the Sky.

Author: Vernor Vinge.

Length: 448 pages.

Publisher:  TOR Books.

Published: October 11, 2011.

OVERALL GRADE: A/A- (3.83/4.0).

PLOT: A.

IMAGERY: A-.

IMPACT: A-. 

WRITING: A.

FOOD REVIEW: brgr:shack (Arlington, VA)

It just turns out that my quest to experience the best burger joints in the Washington, D.C. area was made a lot easier because one of the leading contenders happens to be a 5-minute walk from where I am currently working in Arlington, Virginia. brgr:shack is a gourmet burger joint which serves "100% All Natural Grass Fed Beef Burgers." It is also literally across the street from the Ballston-MU metro stop on the Orange line.
So, there's no excuse for District-dwellers to venture into the 'burbs to experience the fast food ecstasy which is eating at brgr:shack.

Although the date on my review says that I ate at the establishment on February 7, 2012, I have actually been there almost half a dozen times since I moved to the area in August 2011. There's a reason; I am pretty confident that brgr:shack has the best burgers in the Washington, D.C. area. I have had several items from the menu, such as the {melt:brgr} (caramelized onions, red wine sauteed mushrooms, Swiss cheese, shack sauce; $8), the {m:brgr} (lettuce, tomatoes, fresh onion, pickles, American cheese, shack sauce; $7) and designed my own {brgr} (lettuce, tomatoes, mayo, cheddar, applewood smoked bacon; $8). Every single burger was sublime, perfectly cooked (medium-rare), extremely tasty and awesomely filling.

In addition to excellent burgers, the brgr:shack also pays attention to the sides. One of the failings of other pretenders to the throne of burger primacy is their lack of attention to the things you eat with the burger. (This is not the case at the best burger place in New York City: Burger Joint, I hasten to add, or at brgr:shack.) I'm looking at you, Ray's Hell Burger , Wiinky's and Five Guys!  On the contrary,  brgr:shack  has astonishingly good onion rings as well as fries which perfectly match the high quality of the burgers. If you do not walk in to the joint absolutely starving I defy you to finish a burger-and-fries combination (which can generally be had for $10-$12 with a free soda thrown in for good measure). So, not only is the food quite good, but it's also cheap! Why are you not making your plans to eat there right now? Even more incredibly, on Mondays the burgers are all only $5. I'm seriously trying to stop myself from eating there every week!

But, wait, there's more! Usually in this kind of review you would hear me talk about the rustic but simple nature of the decor and ambiance, with a comment that its good to see that they are focusing their attention on the food instead of where you eat it. But in the case of brgr:shack the ambiance is a definite highlight of the eating experience. It is in a small but airy space, with large glass windows and very high ceilings. There is ultra-chic, modern furniture, with lots of chrome and polished hardwood.

Get thee to brgr:shack, you won't be sorry that you did (unless you show up not hungry, but don't say I didn't warn you!)

Name: brgr: shack.

Location: 4215 Fairfax Drive Arlington, VA 22203.

Contact: 703-647-9191.

Visit: February 7, 2012.

AMBIANCE: A.

SERVICE: A.

VALUE: A.

FOOD: A+. 

OVERALL: A/A+ (4.083/4.0)

FOOD REVIEW: Burger Joint (Manhattan, New York City)

Burger Joint inside the Le Parker Meridien Hotel just down the street from Carnegie Hall is one of the great best-kept secrets in New York City. Probably serving the best burgers and fries in the world, it is literally hidden away behind a curtain in the lobby of a swanky Manhattan hotel just a few blocks from Columbus Circle and Central Park.

The key to Burger Joint's excellence is its simplicity. As you can see from the picture (see above) of the sign which is prominently displayed by the counter they only do a few things but they do them very very well. I ordered the cheese burger with all toppings and the fries. I always order my burgers medium-rare and at the Burger Joint it was perfectly cooked: slightly pink in the middle and incredibly juicy. At some high-end burger places the portions are large (commensurate with the prices) but at Burger Joint both the prices and the portions are "just right." As another indication of their focus on the food and not superfluous details, your food comes to you (rather quickly) wrapped in a plain brown paper.

Another high point of the meal at the Burger Joint is that not only is the burger perfectly cooked with high-quality materials and extremely fresh buns but the fries are also exceptionally good: crispy, with a solid potato flavor and not too salty.

If you find yourself in New York, especially in the vicinity of Carnegie Hall do yourself a favor and stop by the Burger Joint and treat yourself to what is probably the most sublime burger and fries combination in the world.

Name: Burger Joint.

Location: Le Parker Meridien, 119 W 56th St, New York, NY 10019.

Contact: 212-708-7414.

Visit: September 3, 2011.

AMBIANCE: A-.

SERVICE: A.

VALUE: A.

FOOD: A+. 

OVERALL: A (4.0/4.0)

MOVIE REVIEW: Pariah

The film Pariah has been enjoying a very positive buzz in film circles. I saw the short version of this film at the 2007 Fusion (LGBT People of Color) film festival in Los Angeles and was quite impressed. The 2007 short was only 27 minutes long but was clearly one of the best things at the film festival.

The production team for the feature film version of Pariah is the same as the one who created the original short: writer-director Dee Rees and producer Nekisa Cooper. Except this time the feature has some high-profile Executive Producers (most notably Spike Lee).

The plot is about the coming-of-age story of a Black lesbian named Alike (whose friends call her Lee and whose family members call her Alike). There is an astonishing scene in the beginning of the film in which Alike and her (rather butch looking) friend Laura are at lesbian club (complete with female strippers) where Alike is visibly uncomfortable but Laura fits right in. They take the bus home and Alike demurs when Laura asks whether she should stay on the bus past her own stop in order to see her friend safely home. The reason for this becomes clear. As soon as Laura leaves, Alike transforms herself from a gender non-conforming butch (though even under all her thuggish drag her female attractiveness still shines through) into a proper feminine daughter, applying make-up, putting on earrings, removing her do-rag and taking off her shirt to reveal a blouse underneath. It is an astonishing moment where the inherent conflict of the character is depicted with stark clarity: she has two identities, only one which is acceptable at home.

How the story evolves is not something that we haven't seen before (after all, at their core all coming-of-age stories and coming-out stories are basically the same) but it never seems pedestrian due to two things: the acting and the verisimilitude of the story. The performance by Adepero Oduye  lights up the screen and Kim Wayans as her mother is difficult to watch because it seems to real (and repellent). The story unspools in a very realistic manner which keeps the audience engaged and when it ends you are sad, but very happy that you went on the journey.

Title: Pariah.
Director: Dee Rees.
Running Time: 1 hour, 45 minutes.
MPAA Rating: Rated PG-13 for some violent images and brief nudity.
Release Date: January 1, 2012.
Viewing Date: January 22, 2012.

Plot: B+.
Acting: A+.
Visuals: A-.
Impact: A.

Overall Grade: B/B+ (3.25/4.0).

BOOK REVIEW: Mistborn series by Brandon Sanderson

I had previously heard about Brandon Sanderson as one of the new big names in fantasy fiction. He is most well-known for taking over the Wheel of Time series from Robert Jordan after the author's untimely death after publishing the 12th novel in that epic 14-volume gigantic series. I really don't have an interest in getting hooked on a story which is something like 11,000 pages long and 4 million words. I'm already screwed because I'm hooked on A Song of Ice and Fire by George R.R. Martin which is now 5 books long and even though it is supposed to end at Book 7 most observers are skeptical of that happening, and of Martin being alive long enough to complete his masterwork. Speculative fiction lovers are burned from our experience with Frank Herbert, who published Chapterhouse: Dune the 6th book in his brilliant Dune series and then died in 1986, leaving his literature legacy in the hands of his son Brian Herbert and Kevin Anderson who have abused the privilege by churning out mounds of simplistic unreadable crap set in the complex, compelling universe created by Herbert.

Anyway, most reviews of Sanderson's work point towards the Mistborn series as a good place to start, since it contains a fairly sophisticated system of magic as well as the presence of non-human semi-intelligent species set on a planet with a medieval level of civilization. That puts it pretty firmly in the sweet spot between fantasy and science fiction, which I found interesting.

The most unusual aspect of Sanderson's Mistborn series is that the primary character (i.e. hero) is female. Her name is Vin. Needless to say, this is very unusual in the male-dominated world of swords-and-sorcery books. Vin is a fascinating character, she becomes very powerful but Sanderson keeps her very femininity very much in focus, with detailed descriptions of the dresses and makeup she wears and gives the reader an insider's view at her internal monologue as she navigates her way through the world, loving and learning.

Another fascinating feature of the Mistborn series is the role of religion and the question of destiny. I hadn't thought about it before writing this review, but it is clear that Sanderson must have been influenced heavily by Herbert's Dune series. There are similar contours to the books: most chapters start with an epigram (in Dune they were interesting philosophical ruminations from important characters which added color to the world building, in Mistborn the epigrams are excerpts from an important historical text and constitute a parallel story in themselves), there is a tyrant who has ruled for thousands of years (Leto II in Dune and The Lord Ruler in Mistborn) and there is a race of oppressed peoples who eventually become dominant in society (the fremen in Dune and the skaa in Mistborn).

The themes of religion and destiny are common to both works as well. In Mistborn, there is a prominent character (who would probably get third billing in a movie adaptation of the series) named Sazed who all he does is muse about religion. He "collects" them, sort of like a librarian. He is known as a Keeper. He has access to another version of the magic system, called feruchemy, which is different from the one that Vin uses. That magic system is called allomancy, and is the primary source of power in the world.

Allomancy is based on the ingestion of metals, and they give the rare breeds who possess "allomantic" abilities powers that are reminiscent of some of our favorite superheroes: superstrength (iron), enhanced vision and hearing (tin), influence emotions of nearby people (zinc and brass) and physically attract repel/attract nearby metals (steel). There are many other metals and the system is nicely designed with a pleasant symmetry (some metals counteract the effects of other metals). Throughout the Mistborn series the number of metals grows and even by the end of the 3rd book it is clear there are metals in the system that are yet to be discovered.

The specific plot of the books I don't want to reveal but the writing and plotting are very strong and there are mysteries and puzzles that are only revealed on the way with a huge surprise (who is the Hero of the Ages?) only discovered in the last few pages of the last book.

Here is the blurb from Amazon.com:

Brandon Sanderson, fantasy's newest master tale spinner, author of the acclaimed debut Elantris, dares to turn a genre on its head by asking a simple question: What if the hero of prophecy fails? What kind of world results when the Dark Lord is in charge? The answer will be found in the Mistborn Trilogy, a saga of surprises and magical martial-arts action that begins in Mistborn. 

For a thousand years the ash fell and no flowers bloomed. For a thousand years the Skaa slaved in misery and lived in fear. For a thousand years the Lord Ruler, the "Sliver of Infinity," reigned with absolute power and ultimate terror, divinely invincible. Then, when hope was so long lost that not even its memory remained, a terribly scarred, heart-broken half-Skaa rediscovered it in the depths of the Lord Ruler's most hellish prison. Kelsier "snapped" and found in himself the powers of a Mistborn. A brilliant thief and natural leader, he turned his talents to the ultimate caper, with the Lord Ruler himself as the mark.  

Kelsier recruited the underworld's elite, the smartest and most trustworthy allomancers, each of whom shares one of his many powers, and all of whom relish a high-stakes challenge. Only then does he reveal his ultimate dream, not just the greatest heist in history, but the downfall of the divine despot.But even with the best criminal crew ever assembled, Kel's plan looks more like the ultimate long shot, until luck brings a ragged girl named Vin into his life. Like him, she's a half-Skaa orphan, but she's lived a much harsher life. Vin has learned to expect betrayal from everyone she meets, and gotten it. She will have to learn to trust, if Kel is to help her master powers of which she never dreamed.

Another big influence for Sanderson must be Scott Lynch, the creator of the Locke Lamora books, because the "heist/caper" aspect of the books are also lots of fun. There are also lots of thrilling descriptions of hand-to-hand combat as well as conflicts between armies that have all the panache (but not the bloody gore) of Joe Abercrombie.

Sanderson's Mistborn series is the real deal; any lover of the greats of fantasy (Martin, Jordan, Lynch, Abercrombie, Peter Brett) and well-written, political science fiction (Herbert) will enjoy these books.

Title: Mistborn: The Final Empire

Author: Brandon Sanderson

Length: 672 pages.

Publisher: TOR Fantasy .

Published: July 31, 2007.

OVERALL GRADE: A/A- (3.91/4.0).

PLOT: A.

IMAGERY: A-.

IMPACT: A. 

WRITING: A.

Title: Mistborn: The Well of Ascension

Author: Brandon Sanderson

Length: 816 pages.

Publisher: TOR Fantasy.

Published: June 3, 2008.

OVERALL GRADE: A/A- (3.83/4.0).

PLOT: A.

IMAGERY: A-.

IMPACT: A-. 

WRITING: A.

Title: Mistborn: The Hero of Ages

Author: Brandon Sanderson

Length: 784 pages.

Publisher: TOR Fantasy.

Published: April 28, 2009.

OVERALL GRADE: A (4.0/4.0).

PLOT: A.

IMAGERY: A.

IMPACT: A. 

WRITING: A.

MOVIE REVIEW: Hugo

The Other Half really wanted to see Hugo and I was amenable, so we saw it in 3-D at the Arclight Cinemas in Pasadena. All I knew about the movie going in was that it was directed by Martin Scorsese. 


Last week Hugo became the most Oscar-nominated film of 2011 with 11 nominations (Picture, Director, Adapted Screenplay, Cinematography, Art Direction, Costume Design, Original Score, Editing, Sound Editing, Sound Mixing and Visual Effects). It joins 21 other films which have received exactly 11 nominations (there are 25 films which have received more than 11 nominations). Only The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King won all 11 Oscars for which it is nominated and Hugo is unlikely to win that many since it received exactly zero nominations in the acting categories (but it is one of only 3 films to ever get nominations in all 7 of the technical categories).

The film stars Oscar winner Ben Kingsley as Georges Méliès, Asa Butterfield as Hugo Cabret and Chloë Grace Moretz as Isabelle. Hugo is a young boy who lives in a Paris train station, maintaining the clocks. Sacha Baron Cohen plays the Station Inspector, who patrols the station with his large, vicious-looking dog, looking for rule-breakers. The screenplay was adapted by John Logan from the best-selling children's novel, The Invention of Hugo Cabret, written by Brian Selznick.

The audience is first introduced to Hugo living alone in the station, surviving by stealing food and living on his own in the roof of the station. Hugo and his father (played by Jude Law) had an amazing automaton (mechanical man) which is now broken. Hugo is desperately trying to find a heart-shaped key which will possibly allow the automaton to run again. He runs into Isabelle, who is the niece of Kingsley's character. A bitter old man who runs a toy store in the station who catches Hugo trying to steal something and punishes him by confiscating a notebook containing Hugo's father's sketches. Hugo entreats Isabelle to help him get the notebook back and they become partners in crime and go on adventures together.

The movie is in 3-D and Scorsese provides a captivating look and feel to the film which makes excellent use of the technology. The acting and impact of the story are not as effective. I don't want to reveal too much of the plot but although the movie is a feast for the eyes there were several moments where the interactions and motivations of the characters just rang strangely false.

That being said, the movie is worth seeing, but despite all its acclaim from the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, I don't think Hugo is one of the Top 9 achievements in film for 2011.

Title: Hugo.
Director: Martin Scorsese.
Running Time: 1 hour, 45 minutes.
MPAA Rating: Rated PG-13 for some violent images and brief nudity.
Release Date: November 23, 2011.
Viewing Date: January 14, 2012.

 Plot: B.
Acting: B+.
Visuals: A-.
Impact: B.

Overall Grade: B/B+ (3.25/4.0).

FILM REVIEW: The Iron Lady

The Other Half and I finally saw Meryl Streep in The Iron Lady, on the MLK holiday. As expected, it is an acting tour de force from La Streep, definitely worthy of an Oscar. As expected, Streep was received her record 17th Oscar nomination (14th as Best Actress) this week. She already has two Oscars (1982's Best Actress, Sophie's Choice; 1979's Best Supporting Actress, Kramer vs. Kramer) at home but it's been nearly 30 years since her last win. Come on, people, she's the greatest actor of all time, so she should have the highest award for excellence in film acting, the Academy Award.

Anyway, the particular vehicle which Meryl Streep is using to attempt to win her 3rd Oscar is a biography of British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. It really is pretty incredible source material. It seems like a cliche, but sometimes truth is really harder to believe than fiction. A person who was the daughter of the owner of a greengrocer becomes the first female head of state of one of the countries who have a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council, in other words, one of the world's superpowers. And she ends up becoming the longest serving Prime Minister of her country in the 20th century.

The screenplay is by Abi Morgan, and is somewhat unconventional. Most of the story is told as flashbacks from an elderly (and clearly mentally infirm) Lady Thatcher after she is no longer Prime Minister and is still daling with the death of her longtime husband Denis Thatcher from a decade before.
Denis is played well by Oscar-winner Jim Broadbent. The make-up on Meryl is stunning, so that not only is she doing an incredibly accurate impersonation of Margaret Thatcher as we remember her from the 1980s, but also a very believable look as a very old woman. We are used to seeing Meryl disappear into her characters, so one doesn't think one is seeing Meryl Streep on screen *acting* but instead one is following the travails of her character. The Iron Lady is another one of those cinematic experiences.

The sections of the film which follow Thatcher's rise to power and depict some of her important  moments in power are the high points of the film and are quite exciting. The problem is that they are bookended by returns to the present day with a portrayal of a feeble-minded, depressing Thatcher as a lonely, needy old woman. The acting is impeccable throughout, despite despising Thatcher's politics, Streep makes your empathize with the humanity of her situation. In fact, the film is surprisingly apolitical, mainly including politics to show Thatcher's consistent philosophy without ever really questioning its impact on people and effectiveness.

Overall, The Iron Lady is worth seeing for Meryl Streep's astonishing performance as well as an  interesting excursion through 1980s Great Britain.

Title: The Iron Lady.
Director: Phyllida Lloyd.
Running Time: 1 hour, 45 minutes.
MPAA Rating: Rated PG-13 for some violent images and brief nudity.
Release Date: January 13, 2012.
Viewing Date: January 16, 2012.

Plot: B-.
Acting: A+.
Visuals: A-.
Impact: B+.

Overall Grade: B+ (3.50/4.0).

BOOK REVIEW: Neil Gaiman's AMERICAN GODS

During my 2008 birthday trip to Puerto Vallarta I read Neil Gaiman's American Gods. It is on the relatively short but prestigious list of acclaimed books which have won both the Nebula and Hugo awards, the most prestigious awards in speculative fiction.

Neil Gaiman is an incredibly accomplished writer, and unfortunately, he knows this very well. I previously reviewed his The Graveyard Book which won not only the Hugo Award (the most prestigious award in science fiction/fantasy) in 2009 but also the Newberry Medal, the most prestigious award in juvenile fiction. I was baffled by the critical acclaim for this book which I found trite and boring.

American Gods is a very interesting book and I am glad that I read it but one can't really say that I enjoyed it like other Hugo-Nebula winners which are instant favorites like Connie Willis' Doomsday Book and Blackout/All-Clear or Frank Herbert's Dune, just to name a few.

The basic premise of American Gods is the idea that gods and other mythical creatures are real because they are believed in. In particular, there are specific American gods which have been created by various segments of the American populace, who brought the spirits and fables of their homelands when they immigrated to America. Gaiman also introduces the idea of new American gods based on different aspects of modern life such as the Internet.

The story follows the main character named Shadow who meets a man called Mr. Wednesday and they travel across America until Mr. Wednesday becomes another casualty in the war between the New Gods and the Old Gods. There are many, many scenes between characters who are representatives or symbols of various Gods. The references are so multifarious and obscure it is doubtful that anyone can recognize them all but one has to admire the creativity of the central conceit although I do think it takes a toll on the readability of the book as well as the integrity of the plot.

Interestingly, HBO has decided that the rich diversity of the world Gaiman has created here is worthy material for a blockbuster new television series in the vein of Game of Thrones. It was announced in Summer 2011 that the network intends to produce six(!) seasons of American Gods starting in 2013 with each season budgeted in the $40 million range. I predict that a well-done television series is probably a more enjoyable way to consume and appreciate Neil Gaiman's American Gods.

Author: Neil Gaiman

Title: American Gods.

Paperback: 624 pages.
Publisher: Harper Perennial.
Date: September 2, 2003.

OVERALL GRADE: B+.

PLOT: B+.
IMAGERY: B+.
IMPACT: B
WRITING: A-.

MOVIE REVIEW: Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol

The Other Half and I were feeling like watching something not too serious for the last weekend of the year and since Brad Bird is one of our favorite directors (The Incredibles, The Iron Giant) we decided to go see his lastest film, even if it is the 4th installment in the Mission Impossible movies starring Tom Cruise.

Also influencing our decision to see the film was the fact that it was sporting a surprisingly positive rating on rottentomatoes.com of 93%, pretty high for your typical mindless action flick. The third one (2006's Mission Impossible III) had been produced and directed by JJ Abrams and had (somewhat ineffectively, in my estimation) combined numerous action sequences with intricate, highly charged emotional scenes between Cruise and Philip Seymour Hoffman.

This fourth outing stars Cruise again (now 49 years old but astonishingly still able to maintain his credibility as male action hero) as well as Simon Pegg (Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzz), Paula Patton (Déjà Vu, Precious) and Jeremy Renner (The Hurt Locker, The Town). (Spoiler alert! Tom Wilkinson has a literally short-lived cameo as the Secretary of Defense and Anil Kapoor (the TV host in Slumdog Millionaire) shows up late in the film as comically randy billionaire.) Looks like actor Josh Holloway (Sawyer on Lost) is starting to get some work in movies although his part is also pretty small.

I would talk about the plot of the movie but it is typically simultaneously indecipherable and non-sensical. What is most important in this kind of movie are the shooting locations, the fancy gadgets and the overall production values and on this level Mission Impossible IV does not disappoint.

The movie begins in Budapest, Hungary (the second film I have seen in little over a month to do so: Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy also begins with a pivotal scene in this apparently gorgeous city) and then movies on to The Kremlin in Moscow, then the tallest building in the world (Burj Khalifa), located in the United Arab Emirates and then ends in Mumbai, India. It really is quite thrilling to get a close-up look at the interior an exterior of the Burj Khalifa, as well as the view from 130 stories.

There are all sorts of fanciful gadgets used by the "Impossible Mission Force," even the much-maligned, (frankly ridiculous) full-face masks introduced in the very first edition of the series which basically allows anyone's face to appear on anyone else's body (perfect facial impersonation). However, here the writer (or director) do themselves a favor by making fun of the face masks, while still deploying them in a way which forwards "the plot."

The production values are frankly top-notch throughout and though the film is well-over 2-hours it never seems to slow down and due to the penchant for killing characters played by major actors the viewer really does have a sense that perhaps this time the bad guys will actually win and that any member of the team can be killed at just about any moment.

Except for Tom of course. After all, there is the inevitable Mission Impossible V  to look forward to!

Title: Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol.
Director: Brad Bird.
Running Time: 2 hours, 13 minutes.
MPAA Rating: Rated PG-13 for sequences of intense action and violence.
Release Date: December 21, 2011.
Viewing Date: December 30, 2011.

 Plot: C.
Acting: A-.
Visuals: A.
Impact: A-.

Overall Grade: B+ (3.33/4.0).

FILM REVIEW: The Artist

The Artist is not like any other recent movie you have ever seen. The Other Half and I saw it at the Arclight Cinemas Pasadena in the week between Christmas and New Years. At Arclight they always have the usher come in before the film and make a little speech about the film and the theater. At this screening the usher mentioned that the film was in an "old school" format of 4:3 in addition to being in black and white and nearly silent (no spoken dialogue). He wanted to warn the audiences not to think that there were technical difficulties with the sound or the projection: the unusual look and lack of dialogue were artistic choices by the writer-director Michel Hazanavicius.

The movie cleverly begins by showing a movie within the movie which is a silent movie, letting the audience become acclimated to the black and white format and the lack of sound. Eventually the camera pans back and shows that the movie within a movie is occurring at a gala premiere and it is precisely at the moment in which the audience has to buy into the central conceit of the film: the action outside the screen is also in black and white and silent! It is a very fun idea, which even gets more "meta" when one realizes that The Artist is a silent black-and-white film about a silent black-and-white film star! The film star in question (who also starred in the movie within a movie) is named George Valentin (played by the debonair Jean Dujardin) and in the beginning is shown to be a wildly popular leading man, a sort of combination of Rudolf Valentino and Errol Flynn.

The main plot involves the change in Hollywood with the advent of "talkie" movies and we are shown the meteoric rise of Peppy Miller (played by the luminous Bérénice Bejo) and corresponding precipitous fall of Dujardin. Miller is introduced to the audience as just another fan who is besotted with Valentin, hoping to get an autograph when through an accident her picture gets put in the paper with Valentin and she is discovered by the head of the studio (played by John Goodman).

One of the highlights of the movie is Valentin's sidekick, a dog named Jack who is a very well-trained Jack Russell Terrier, who appears in almost every scene of the film that Valentin appears in. Another highlight of the film are the beautiful locations around Los Angeles around which the plot takes place, depicting a 1930s Hollywood (then called "Hollywoodland" of course).

Overall, the film is a delightful homage to the storied past of cinema, with filmic shoutouts to some of the highest regarded movies of all time, such as Singin' in the Rain, A Star is Born and even Citizen Kane.

One caveat is that for modern-day audiences used to the high impact look and feel of HDTVs and Blu-Rays,  The Artist is a demanding film to watch, requiring more concentration and attention, but it is worth the effort.

Title:  The Artist.
Director: Michel Hazanavicius.
Running Time: 1 hour, 40 minutes.
MPAA Rating: Rated PG-13 for a disturbing image and a crude gesture.
Release Date: November 25, 2011.
Viewing Date: December 27, 2011.

 Plot: A-.
Acting: A.
Visuals: A-.
Impact: B+.

Overall Grade: (3.67/4.0).

BOOK REVIEW: George R.R. Martin's A Dance with Dragons

After a long wait of nearly six years since the publication of A Feast for Crows, the fifth book in George R.R. Martin's award-winning, best-selling A Song of Ice and Fire series, A Dance with Dragons was released in July 2011.

The entire A Song of Ice and Fire series has had a higher profile lately, especially since HBO started airing a mini-series called Game of Thrones based on the first book, A Game of Thrones. Their intention is to shoot each season of the series roughly based on each book in the series. Peter Dinklage won a very important Emmy award (Best Supporting Actor in a Drama Series) for his portrayal of Tyrion Lannister, one of the fan's favorite characters.

A Dance with Dragons was reviewed by all the major papers of record (Los Angeles Times, New York Times, Time) as well as the usual suspects of media outlets online, generally positively. Among fans, however, the reviews are somewhat mixed, with the feeling that the latest book is closer to A Feast for Crows than A Storm of Swords. To me, that's to be expected because the timeline of events that occurred in A Feast for Crows occupy about half of the book in A Dance with Dragons, happily told from the perspective of the fan's favorite characters. The problem with this is that not much progress was made on the huge, series-spanning plots like: Daenerys' march to Westeros from Essos, John Snow's attempts to maintain the Wall against the invasion of Creatures of the Frozen North, Bran Stark's destiny to actualize his magical talents and whether the Iron Throne will be controlled by someone who actually deserves the power and cherishes the people they rule, just to name a few. (By some counts, there were around  11 central plots covered in just this book).

On extended reflection, I think my overall evaluation of the book is closer to the official reviewer' than the fans'. I've only read A Dance with Dragons once, but I would still rank it as the second best book of the series, behind the impressive A Storm of Swords which is still the best of the bunch with A Dance with Dragons close behind, followed by A Clash of Kings and A Game of Thrones (the less said about A Feast for Crows, the better).

I had the good fortune of only starting to read the series in 2011, so I have not had to experience the half-decade long wait for the next installment in the series. Sadly, now that I have caught up with Martin's production schedule, I will have to comfort myself during the long wait for Book 6 (widely reported to be titled The Winds of Winter) by re-reading the first five books and watching the excellent HBO television adaptations of the earlier books (apparently each season of the series will be an adaptation of the corresponding book). Hopefully the next book will be out before the television series catches up with Martin!

Title: A Dance with Dragons.
Author: George R.R. Martin.
Paperback: 1040 pages.
Publisher: Bantam.
Published: July 12, 2011.

OVERALL GRADE: A- (3.917/4.0).


PLOT: A-.
IMAGERY: A-.
IMPACT: A+.
WRITING: A.

MOVIE REVIEW: The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo

The Other Half and I saw David Fincher's follow-up to his Oscar-winning The Social Network, the English-language film adaptation of the blockbuster thriller The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. The books written by Swede Stieg Larsson have sold over 65 million, with this first entry in the Millenium trilogy having individually sold over 30 million copies itself.

Fincher's movie stars Daniel Craig as Mikael Blomqvist, the intrepid, independent reporter and Rooney Mara as Lisbeth Salander, the eponymous Girl in the title and hacker/social misfit extraordinaire.

The script Fincher used to film this movie was written by acclaimed screenwriter Steve Zaillian (who won the Oscar for Schindler's List). The story follows the plot of the book quite closely, which is an excellent decision because the book is excellent (surely 30 million people can't be wrong!)

The movie is close to three hours long but never seems slow. There is so much story to pack into the running time. There are two main threads of the tale: the first, primary one involves the central mystery: a classic locked room mystery involving the disappearance of a 16-yer old girl 40-years ago. The second one involves learning about Lisbeth's background as she negotiates a horrible situation stemming from being an adult who is also a ward of the state and has  a court-appointed guardian.

Eventually the two threads intersect and the two (Lisbeth and Mikael) work together to solve the mystery. While they are trying to solve that mystery they stumble upon  a much larger, disturbing pattern of murders of young women. It seems like they must be hunting a misogynistic serial killer and it is this feature of the book which explains why it's original Swedish title translates to "Men Who Hate Women." The two, working together, do eventually solve both the mystery of the original disappearance they intended to solve as well as the one involving the serial killer that they discovered inadvertently.

The most important development involves the evolution of Lisbeth Salander. It is following her story which makes the audience interested in the sequels, despite the well-executed (and slightly modified) conclusion to the first installment.

Title: The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo.
Director: David Fincher.
Running Time: 2 hours, 38 minutes.
MPAA Rating: Rated R for brutal violent content including rape and torture, strong sexuality, graphic nudity, and language.
Release Date: December 21, 2011.
Viewing Date: December 23, 2011.

Plot: A.
Acting: A.
Visuals: B+.
Impact: B-.

Overall Grade: (3.5/4.0).

FILM REVIEW: Tinker, Sailor, Soldier, Spy

I saw Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy at the Landmark Theaters E-Street Cinema in Washington, D.C. with some co-workers. I had never read the John Le Carrré’s classic bestselling novel on which the film is based or seen the classic BBC adaptation starring the great Sir Alec Guinness but I had heard a radio interview with Gary Oldman  which intrigued me.

The basic outline of the story is about the search for a possible Russian double agent at the very top echelons of the British Intelligence Service (called M.I.-6) in the mid 1970s at the height of the Cold War between the West and the Soviet Bloc. There are four main suspects, codenamed (you guessed it) "Tinker," "Tailor," "Soldier," and "Poor Man" with "Beggarman" being the codename given to the main protagonist portrayed by Oldman, whose character's name is George Smiley.

The movie is set in London in the 1970s and the filmmakers have taken their charge very seriously, meticulously re-creating a 1970s workplace with a striking lack of racial or ethnic diversity, ubiquitous smoking and inappropriate social situations. Watching the movie in 2011 one is also immediately struck by the lack of technology we take for granted: no computers, no cell phones (not even cordless phones!), no satellite/GPS technology.

The investigation into the mole involves a lot of examination of papers and starts off incredibly slowly. For the first ten minutes of the movie there is almost no dialogue and almost no action to speak of. I believe the film makers are trying to put the audience in the position of the characters where both groups are starting with no information and trying to piece together what is going on from various cues and small, disconnected bits of information.

In fact, communication and the movement of information (or intelligence) between individuals is a central theme of the film. Multiple times, a question is asked of one character to another and the director cuts to a different scene without explicitly depicting the answer to the question being given. The audience is required to infer the answer to the question from subsequent scenes and actions by the characters. This is similar to how Oldman's Smiley has to infer the answers to questions he has about the motivations behind the actions of his four "old friends" who are now his main suspects for betraying their country.

Oldman's Smiley is a quiet, horn-rimmed glasses and tweed-jacket wearing middle-aged British bloke. He looks more like an accountant than an international spy with a license to kill. Most of the "action" per se is in watching Oldman's reactions as he doggedly chases the truth and he sifts through the responses people are giving him to his questions. However, as the movie unspools the pace accelerates faster and faster, like a ball of twine rolling down hill. The audience has to pay more and closer attention to keep hold of the thread.

The rest of the cast is also stellar, featuring John Hurt, 2011 Best Actor Oscar-winner Colin Firth, Inception's Tom Hardy and PBS's Sherlock Ian Cumberbatch.

Title: Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy.
Director: Tomas Alfredson.
Running Time: 2 hours, 8 minutes.
MPAA Rating: Rated R for violence, some sexuality/nudity and language.
Release Date: December 9, 2011.
Viewing Date: December 16, 2011.

 Plot: A.
Acting: A.
Visuals: B+.
Impact: B-.

Overall Grade: (3.5/4.0).

MOVIE REVIEW: Moneyball

The day before Thanksgiving, the Other Half and I finally got around to seeing the critically acclaimed (95% on rottentomatoes.com) Moneyball. It is based on the best-selling book of the same name by Michael Lewis, which tells the story of  how the Oakland Athletics baseball team applied the mathematical principles of Bill James "Sabermetrics" to the apparently non-mathematical arena of professional baseball.

Moneyball as a movie is basically your typical sports movie, but with a twist. There's no doubt that it is the best movie about baseball since the classic Bull Durham starring a then-cute Kevin Costner and not-yet-married (or divorced) Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins. Interestingly, it is also a movie which features the classic sporting movie cliché of the redemption of the losing under dog. This time, however, the underdog is the hapless geek in the form of Jonah Hill, who plays Peter Brand, a recent Economics graduate from Yale who is also a baseball statistics geek and devotee of Sabermetrics. The movie is carried by Brad Pitt, who plays Billy Beane, the general manager of the Oakland Athletics, who at the beginning of the movie has just lost his marquee players to the deep pockets of the hated New York Yankees after losing the decisive 5th game in a playoff series.

The movie really revolves around the relationship between Beane and Brand as Beane quickly adopts Sabermetrics and he and Brand go about trying to convince the old fogeys in the Oakland management, exemplified by Philip Seymour Hoffman's Art Howe, that they can't compete with the teams which have budgets 50-100% greater than theirs. The old fogeys are not happy and initial results are not promising.

Of course, this being a traditional sports movie you know the Oakland A's are going to start winning eventually, and that does happen. For the casual sports fan who does not know the basic details of what actually happens the story unfolds in a compelling fashion (proving again that truth can be more interesting than fiction).

The movie is generally engaging but as a mathematician I was somewhat disappointed with the handwaving way in which the director chooses to communicate the computational implementation of Sabermetrics (lots of glowing equations floating in mid-air and quick-cut shots of spreadsheets). This is a minor quibble and I understand that this was a choice made to make the movie as enjoyable to the widest spectrum of movie-goers. The decision is generally successful since I can tell lots of people would find the movie a lot of fun.

Title: Moneyball.
Director: Bennett Miller.
Running Time: 2 hours, 13 minutes.
MPAA Rating: Rated PG-13 for some strong language.
Release Date: September 23, 2011.
Viewing Date: November 23, 2011.


Plot: A-.
Acting: A-.
Visuals: B+.
Impact: B+.


Overall Grade: (3.5/4.0).

MOVIE REVIEW: J. Edgar

After a long break, I finally went and saw a movie. A group of co-workers planned an outing to see J. Edgar, the new movie directed and produced by Oscar-winner Clint Eastwood (Unforgiven, Million Dollar Baby, Mystic River) starring Leonardo Dicaprio, Naomi Watts, Judi Dench and Armie Hammer. The film is a biography about the life of J. Edgar Hoover, the longtime director of the Federal Bureau of Investigations, and was written by openly gay Oscar-winner Dustin Lance Black (Milk).
The movie has had a mixed reception by critics (rated 40% on rottentomatoes.com) and has been excoriated by some LGBT reviewers. I don't disagree with the disappointed reviews but I do disagree with the intensity of the vitriol that is being heaped on the film.
At its core, J. Edgar is a film about the 50-year-old relationship between two men, J. Edgar Hoover (played by Dicaprio) and Clyde Tolson (played by Hammer), one of whom happened to be the most powerful man in the United States. Black's screenplay jumps haphazardly between different decades, covering the major events in Hoover's (and thus the FBI's) career. The primary event in Hoover's career was his investigation of the so-called Crime of the Century, the kidnapping (and murder) of Charles Lindbergh's infant son. Hoover was obsessed with solving the crime and the movie does a good job of depicting his support and encouragement of forensic science.


Hoover also had some curious relationships with the two most important women in his life, his mother, Anne Marie Hoover (played with brio by Dame Judi Dench), and his longtime secretary and personal assistant Helen Gandy (a thankless role played by Oscar nominee Naomi Watts). There's an incredibly chilling scene where Judi Dench makes it crystal clear that she has no interest in seeing her longtime bachelor of a son ever come out of the closet. Another enlightening scene is between a very young Hoover and Gandy have just began dating and Hoover asks her to marry him. She must realize that Hoover really has no interest in a conjugal relationship with a woman and instead she is interested in having a more enduring (professional) relationship, as his executive secretary.


The performances are the best part of the film, Dench is particularly good, as is Dicaprio. Hammer is easy on the eyes and the depiction of these two single men spending decades together at the #1 and #2 positions at the internal national police force despite a parade of more than half a dozen Presidents is quite compelling.


However, there are some bad characteristic of the film and these flaws most definitely outweigh its strong points. The first that comes to mind is the make-up. Dicaprio looks quite amazing physically as Hoover, but as the film jumps decades into the future they are forced to slather huge amounts of make-up on Hammer and Dicaprio, making Hammer particularly look like some kind of zombie. It doesn't help matters when Tolson has a stroke and spends the last half-hour of the film shaking a leaf. Hammer does a decent portrayal of the physical effects and Hoover's self-centeredness and paranoia are revealed when he starts to turn on the man who has shared his life with him. Even though the relationship lasts 50 years it is completely chaste since neither party really ever acknowledges the love they have for each other, except for one badly written and overly histrionic scene in which the two get physical (violently and romantically). I can understand that some reviewers felt these aspects of the film make it a disappointing exercise, but I would argue that it is still worth seeing, but go in knowing that it is not a masterpiece, but simply an affecting film.


Title: J. Edgar.
Director: Clint Eastwood.
Running Time: 2 hours, 17 minutes.
MPAA Rating: Rated R for brief strong language.
Release Date: November 11, 2011.
Viewing Date: November 15, 2011.


Plot: B+.
Acting: B+.
Visuals: B-.
Impact: B+.


Overall Grade: (3.167/4.0).