I really should have read this years ago. I wish I could have talked to my Grandad about it. I remember that it made a powerful impression on him.
Firstly, it's beautifully written. The detail is so evocative. I'm always fascinated by historical novelists who can truly bring a period that they didn't live through themselves to life for a reader who is also from another time. The trenches in this novel feel real. More importantly, the characters feel real. They are emotionally complex, placed in extreme situations, and yet Faulks has exactly the right kind of light touch required to infuse them with a humanity that makes you ache for what they have to endure. For me this is what makes it so successful. They are not heroes, or stereotypes of any kind, in fact. They are just people, with a full and recognisable range of personality types, pushed in various ways to and beyond the limits of what humans ever expect to live through. Understanding this truly brings home the trauma of WW1, the full extent of the sacrifice, the true pity of a wasted generation of sons and husbands swallowed by the mud or - to no lesser extent in some cases - by the cost of surviving.
At the same time, Faulks balances the destruction, mind-numbing banality and horror of war with a story about life at its most vital, which bookends and interweaves the war sections. By beginning with the story of Wraysford's affair before the war, we are reminded that he is a young man first, soldier second - again, undermining 2D generalisations of what the names on the monuments represent. Throughout the novel, the sense of potential rebirth, of some seed or shoot surviving is ever present. It's delicately done - always small things, never suggesting easy remedies, never undermining the vulnerability and fragility of the lives that were placed so casually before the mechanised slaughter - but ultimately we are left with a sense of healing and continuation that feels more honest and respectful than a straight war novel might have been.
I wonder what my Grandad would have said about it.
I knew this was supposed to be a "classic" but it didn't automatically grab me as something I needed to watch; not being too familiar with Clint Eastwood, I kinda had it down as a bit of a macho boy-film. Borrowed it from Matty, though, and I'm glad I did.
I knew I was going to like it from the opening sequence. I have a real soft spot for 70s crime stuff - the gloves! The silencer! The funk soundtrack and massive yellow font! I was hooked even before Harry got called into the mayor's office and started being stroppy at having his valuable crime-fighting time wasted by the suits in City Hall. Next thing I knew he was foiling a bank robbery while facing the other way and eating a hot dog ("the usual")...doesn't get much better really.
Yeah, it was silly - some very questionable police procedure and, if you stop to think about it for too long, a bit fascistic. But to be honest, if you stop to think about it for too long, you'll be missing the point that this is a simple world, where the bad guys are Bad, and Harry has to be even Badder just to protect the Good guys. So switch off your brain and enjoy the macho-boy-film aspect of it, as well as the highly entertaining 70s suits.
Rented this because I'm a big Al Pacino fan, even though I'd heard it was bad. I'd heard right.
I have never in my life seen such a badly made film. The first thing you notice is that the dialogue is absolutely dreadful.
AL: "It's not a bomb."
STUDENT WITH A CRUSH WHO'S YOUNG ENOUGH TO BE HIS DAUGHTER: "That's good."
AL: ( after a smell-the-fart-acting dramatic pause): Yeah.
The next thing you notice is that criminology lecturer Al's relationship with his students is decidedly odd. They hero-worship him, despite the fact that he's arrogant and borderline sleazy. At first you think it might be some kind of interesting characterisation and that he's going to turn out to be some kind of maverick genius. But no.
So, he's receiving death threats from a killer that he's put away and that (we've already established) he still considers to be dangerous, whilst continuing with his lecture and making no effort to report it. As things unfold, it becomes clear that we're supposed to believe two things: 1) that the psycho has people working on the outside in a fiendish and massively complicated ploy to totally discredit him and 2) despite all the effort that's gone into this and to the 88-minutes-to-live countdown, the psycho is quite prepared to attempt to murder him along the way by running him down/blowing him up/burning down his apartment/shooting him if the film needs a bit of tension injected. Which frankly it does, because it's directed in such a way as to make you feel that you've got ADD. Flashbacks are pointlessly overused throughout, and the director doesn't concentrate on any one thread for long enough for you to care about it.
Far from coming across as some kind of genius, the doctor is basically yanked along at the end of a string, making ridiculously bad calls at every turn and yet somehow inspiring trust and devotion in everyone. Al gets stopped by a police colleague who has been presented as part of the set-up with seemingly watertight evidence that Al's actually the killer. (Two women, raped and murdered, forensics have found Al's semen at both crime scenes). Al persuades him to give him ten minutes to prove his innocence. What kind of moron cop is this? Mind you, none of the professionals seem that professional. His devoted assistant shags a student in the restricted office, one of his criminology students has a girlie fit of hysterics when she sees a body (allowing Al to comfort her) and Al himself, with his years of experience and amazing reputation, doesn't EVER answer any questions about what's going on when asked by people trying to assist him, and instead phones up a TV channel to wind up the killer, only to get owned in the face with stories of massive monumental errors of judgement that he has made in the past that he can't deny.
Worth a watch with a friend if you want to entertain yourselves with just how bad a film can be.
Borrowed this one from Matty (cheers Matt).
I remember it getting good reviews when it came out but I never felt compelled to give it a watch. I'm not a huge fan of gangster films (Goodfellas in particular is a film I found to be completely overrated). This is mainly because they feature completely unsympathetic characters and watching their inevitable fall from grace doesn't engage me much. Las Vegas has never held much interest for me either - the notion of discovering that it's a glitzy good-time place with a dark underbelly is kinda lost on someone for whom glitzy good times are pretty much associated with dark underbellies from the get go. That's just me.
This was different to what I expected though, whilst being exactly what I expected in terms of plot. Very well made, good story, interesting but flawed main character (De Niro) with a truly shady associate (Pesci) and an even shadier wife (Stone). It's long, so I watched it in chunks and I found myself looking forward to seeing where the story was going to twist next.
Worth a watch.
