Book Review: Naked Lunch (William S Burroughs)

Naked Lunch might be the most challenging book I've encountered.  Part of it is because of the book's namesake, which asks the reader to take a good long look at the end of the fork and see the lunch they're eating, fully exposed, for what it is.  Or, perhaps this is more accurately Burroughs himself looking at his own lunch, which had become defiled after ingesting massive quantities of opiates throughout his life.  Ultimately, that's really what this book is:  it's every random thing he jotted down while under the influence, and none of it is particularly pretty.

The other part of the challenge is that the book makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.  I couldn't tell you what the plot actually is; it's a haphazard concoction of many short pieces strung together continuously.  Most of the characters are nameless, identified only by vague designators like "The Mark," "The Vigilante," "The Exterminator," and so forth.  None of them stand out as anybody with definition or depth.  They all exist in a strange foreign place called the Interzone, which is home to both men and some weird creatures called Mugwumps.  Nearly every episode in this book involves extreme amounts of perverse sex, sadistic violence, and a rather distasteful penchant for endless discharges (or even consumption) of bodily wastes.  Sometimes all of these things are rolled together in one disturbing scene after another.  The sickening details seep through every line of the book, offering tales that are mean-spirited and vulgar.  Beyond the sheer shock value, I really couldn't tell what was going on with this book.  Especially during all its digressions, such as when the book repeatedly breaks into some kind of random courtroom scene, or turns into a movie set or something.  Seriously, what the f*!k is this bull$@&t?

The prose, however, is surprisingly lucid in its own right.  This is one of those books (perhaps one of the first even) that manages to combine words and phrases that shouldn't go together in ingenious ways to deliver abstract scenes with a remarkable level of texture.  The sentences flow well and are hardly ever dull.  Much of what's said may not make sense, but given the way it is said, it's hard to tell if Burroughs was a madman or a genius.

There was a South Park episode, where one of the kids wrote a book that was about nothing but defecation, and it became a renowned smash hit that everybody praised as a masterpiece.  I kinda wonder if that show was meant to parody the success of Naked Lunch, because it certainly feels like the book uses so much disgusting content to shock and repulse the reader, but it's hard to tell if there's really anything worth saying.  I got to admit that it's written in an interesting way, like a form of literary freestyling, which could push it into levels of artistic merit, but I feel the content is not only horrid, but also convoluted and messy.  Thus, I don't know if I should call it good or terrible literature, but its definitely distasteful.  I think I prefer David Cronenberg's film adaptation over this; at least it had a plot.

3/5 (Experience:  Extreme | Content:  Awful | Book:  Mixed)

Book Review: A Matter of Time (Glen Cook)

This book looked like it could be cool, promising a mystery that spans multiple eras of time, with characters tracking down somebody threatening to murder someone in the past.

As simple and interesting as that may sound, I found the book to be a total bore.  I personally could not connect to the characters at any level; even though the dialogue is colorful enough, I never got a good sense of who these people were, what their motivations were, and what they were even doing.  Considering that there are multiple characters being tracked in multiple eras, between the late 1800s to the distant 2050s, I found the story to be (perhaps unnecessarily) convoluted and disjointed.  Unable to draw the connections between the past, present, and future, I found myself not really caring for the book overall, and going through it became a chore.

In addition to being unable to connect to the bland characters and mixed-up plot, I also found the language and settings lacking.  Very little of each era is actually described, so I never felt immersed in the different places these characters went (which included historic Europe, the Vietnam war, and the future).  A little more detail would have definitely been welcome, to help us understand where the characters were at any given time.  The only thing that really constitutes this book is the dialogue, which may dig up enough to help readers understand where the characters are.  Context, and the information in the chapter headings, prove to be frustrating at times, making the book even less readable to me personally.

The actual writing is okay:  I think the author captures the language well, even if he doesn't spend much time on setting.  Exposition can be heavy at times, and it makes for a really dry read.  It is a trim and to-the-point book, even if the point seems elusive.

I really didn't like this book much, as I found the characters and plot uninteresting.  Chances are that other sci-fi fans may enjoy it more, but there are certainly better titles out there to pick from.

2/5 (Entertainment:  Awful | Story:  Marginal | Book:  Average)

Film Review: Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow

It took ten years for Kerry Conran to get this film off the ground. By the time it finally did, it was one of the first-ever to be shot almost entirely on blue-screen soundstages, leading some to say that this film is a glimpse at tomorrow's world of filmmaking.

As far as the end result goes, the film tries its best to capture that certain charm and magic of retro pulp adventure and sci-fi. The spirit and imagination is definitely there, as giant robots pummel cities with ray guns, and entire wings of planes and flying machines clash in midair. The film rolls along at an even and steady pace, with plentiful amounts of action, peril, visual wonder, and loads of homages to genre classics.

Unfortunately, the experience is marred by a few things. Even though there are a lot of nifty vehicles, weapons, and ideas on display, the special effects are pretty bad, even by 2004 standards. They tend to look hazy and soft, and backgrounds don't seem to merge well with the actors. For a film that must be 90% special effects, it makes the whole film look gaudy. All the action scenes whiz by without leaving much of an impact, and the whole lot of them are underwhelming in the end.

The most disappointing aspect is the storytelling. Weak exposition is used to string the characters from one big event to the next on a thin thread of a plot. I never even understood who the villain was and what the evil plot was, but it was some kind of excuse to send giant robots and flying bird-like machines out into the world, and launch a rocket from some lost island populated by prehistoric animals. What makes the plot most underwhelming, however, are the characters. The titular Sky Captain has no charisma or presence; he's pretty much just a fighter pilot with a vague history that garners respect from everybody else. He tries his best to match up with other action heroes like Indiana Jones, but at least Indy had personality, charm, charisma, and a tough struggle - Sky Captain does not. As far as the side characters go, the love interest (named Polly Perkins, who ironically is played by the same gal who would go on to play Pepper Potts) is rather bland and borderline unlikable. Really, Angelina Jolie's brief appearance might be the only character I found intriguing (and that might just be because the eyepatch is cool). Altogether, it adds up to a bland and shallow experience.

Using all-digital photography and all-digital effects, the film looks soft, fake, and low-budget. Editing is okay; there is an over-abundance of transitions and overlays in the beginning, but the rest of the film is fine. Acting is rather weak and bland from the whole cast: Jude Law and Gwyneth Paltrow come off as a rather uninteresting duo. Angelina Jolie seems to be the only one who looks like she's having fun, with Giovanni Ribisi in close second as an on-again off-again sidekick character. Writing could have been much better; I suspect that more fine-tuning on the script could have produced a better story. Even though this film uses some imaginative and well-designed dieselpunk sets, props, and costumes, the weak special effects do little to make me really care for them. What few real-looking objects the film has are pretty decent, but the film overall looks almost too slick and too clean for its own good. Music didn't do much for me either.

I wanted to like this film, but I can't help but to regard it as a bland misfire, thanks to its gaudy all-digital production, the wooden acting, and the weak story. It is worth seeing once for the gee-whiz factor; some people will love it, some won't. Unfortunately, I do not.

2/5 (Entertainment: Marginal | Story: Poor | Film: Poor)

    

Film Review: Eraserhead

When it comes to cinema as an art form, very few films, if any, are as abstract and bizarre as David Lynch's first-ever feature-length film: Eraserhead. Like any piece of art, some people will embrace it, others will shun it. Most are content to give it a shot and never see it again.

It truly is an experience unlike any other. The film takes place in its own little world: a dark, grungy, industrial nightmare laden with stark patterns, shadows, and odd details. Characters don't have much to say, leaving their odd actions and reactions to tell most of the story. There are numerous expressionist images that will truly challenge one's understanding of what's going on: I seriously can't say why this film has a scene with a man on another planet, or why there's an ugly lady dancing inside a radiator, or why there are worm-like things everywhere. The film has its share of grotesqueness, from the crying of a strange mutant baby to the bizarre nightmare where the guy loses his head and it literally becomes a pencil eraser...the film packs in so much weirdness, but it runs evenly and hypnotically, to the point where it's all effortless and natural for the strange world Lynch has created.

The film's content doesn't really follow a standard narrative, so interpreting its plot will depend entirely on the viewer and what he or she makes of the images. The most obvious thing is that this is about some dude having to put up with the horrors and fears of parenthood. You could probably watch the film and extrapolate psychological and sexual subtexts as well. Characters don't have much to them, but it's easy to relate to the protagonist through all his surreal visions, no matter how harrowing they become.

The film uses some very strong, vivid, and stark imagery, all shot with fantastic black-and-white photography. Editing is really precise and good. All of the actors fulfill their parts well. Dialogue tends to be pretty short, blunt, and weird. This was never really an expensive or elaborate production, so considering the film's limitations, it really made the most of what it had. Sound design is very punchy, while the music is extremely airy and surreal, giving the film the perfect atmosphere.

Eraserhead is a strange, surreal, gaudy piece of work that may not make much sense to a casual viewer. As a work of art, it is phenomenal, and all mature audiences should give it a try at least once.

5/5 (Experience: Extreme | Content: Extreme | Film: Perfect)

Book Review: Alternating Currents (Frederick Pohl)

This thin tome features ten short stories of varying lengths and subjects.  They all offer a small dose of intriguing and imaginative sci-fi, but some stories stand out more than others.  Fortunately, each one is pretty breezy and should entice genre fans sufficiently.

Of the stories, the ones that I found most captivating were Let the Ants Try (a bizarre tale in which we give ants a try at evolving and controlling the planet in place of humans), The Tunnel Under the World (a rather interesting mystery in which a man discovers that his life is not what it seems), and What To Do Until the Analyst Comes (an amusing yarn in which an addictive chewing gum is successfully marketed and it turns everyone kinda stupid).  A few of the other stories I found a little less captivating, but are still worthwhile.  The Mapmakers might be the most important tale here:  a solidly-written and suspenseful thriller about spacemen struggling to map their way across the stars (this story is especially noteworthy in the way it emphasizes the threat of uncontrolled heat in space travel, which doesn't radiate and therefore just keeps building; it's not something I see mentioned in other works).  Rafferty's Reasons is a rather intense tale with some interesting psychology.  Target One is a pretty neat idea (something that actually mirrors the premise of the Red Alert video games).  Grandy Devil seems like an odd inclusion to the collection, but it has its share of charm.  As for the remaining three, I barely remember what happens in Children of the Night, The Ghost Maker, and Pythias.  For whatever reason, I found those stories to drag a lot more, and nothing about them really connected with me.

Frederick Pohl crafted each of these stories with a pretty solid blend of prose and dialogue; his writing tells just enough to set the scene, but he doesn't overdo it with the details.  His characters often show personality, and each story has a unique premise or twist worth telling.

If you're a sci-fi fan, this collection should be worth checking out.  Recommended.

4/5 (Entertainment:  Good | Stories:  Good | Book:  Good)

Film Review: Intolerance (1916)

Almost a century ago, D.W. Griffith produced this mammoth film as his follow-up to Birth of a Nation, partly to try and be bigger and better, and also to counteract the racial criticisms his previous film garnered. Intolerance is a massive production that spans thousands of years of human history. For the first time in cinema history, massive sets, massive amounts of extras, huge amounts of props and costumes were dispensed to craft a lavish and visual experience. To this day, many folks acknowledge this film as an important landmark of movie-making history.

Regardless, it is one long-winded film that runs for three hours, telling four different stories in four different eras. The most interesting and visually impressive story involves the fall of ancient Babylon; it's a brutal tale that boasts some surprisingly violent scenes of war, with the backdrop of massive and exotic setpieces. The film also flips around with the classic tale of Jesus and His crucifixion, and once again it looks fabulous. Scenes in 16th century France show the story of St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre. Then there's the modern day scenes (1916 that is) showing the struggle of the working class against the adversities of strike, strife, crime, and punishment. All these stories are united with the recurring image of a baby in a cradle, insinuating that the central theme of "intolerance" is a universal trait that carries on with each new generation, from the day we're born to the day we die.

All that being said, the film never really captivated me. Not even with the lavish visuals, the sumptuous set designs, and the expansive story; as grand of an effort as this film was, I found it to be dry and stiff. None of the stories had any strong characters to follow, and without a pathological attachment, I found myself disconnected to the events that unfolded. The matter is made worse by the fact that all conflict seems historical in nature - most of them revolve around religious differences that set two sides at each others throats. Personal conflict occurs in the modern story, but is still not all that interesting. Thus, I found myself not really caring for what was going on, and the film overall came off as a bore.

I am sorry to say such a thing, because the film clearly shows its quality and passion through its production. It boasts very solid, if not groundbreaking and impressive, photography and editing. Acting is generally good, even by silent-era standards. Title cards tend to be long-winded, and have a tendency to explain a lot of what's going on in a herky-jerky manner. This production spared no expense on the sets, props, and costumes. On DVD, this film is set to the organ score of Gaylord Carter...and I think it sucks.

Intolerance is an important landmark film that all serious film fans should attempt to see. It doesn't do much for me personally, I'm afraid, but it is best seen for its ambition, scope, scale, and overall quality and craftsmanship.

3/5 (Entertainment: Awful | Story: Average | Film: Very Good)

Film Review: Sin City: A Dame To Kill For

So there I was, late summer of '14, I was just cruising around and I decide to catch this flick while I was all hyped. Why not? I thought the first Sin City was ace, so if this second one had just more of the same, I'd be golden.

This sequel starts off kinda lousy, with a little ditty called Just Another Saturday Night. It pulls old Marv back into things (what the hell, I thought he was dead?). A bunch of stuff floats around the screen, Marv rambles on about beating up some punks. The film whips through all kinds of hoopla, before the main credits roll. I just hoped to God the whole thing didn't play as fast and loose as those first scenes.

Thankfully, it doesn't. The film settles down to a slower, more even pace. Hell, it almost seems to drag. But in my eyes, I like the way it unfolds and the film keeps me hooked, like the sultry serenade of a siren. The Long Bad Night kicks off, showing a hotshot kid trying to win big at a poker game with the high hats. That bit gets interrupted by the main feature, A Dame To Kill For; Dwight in his younger days gets played by a dame that everybody seems to fall for. I got to admit, I fell for her watching this picture; that Eva Green sure is one hell of a babe. She's a looker alright, with or without clothes, and I loved watching her whether she was nice or naughty. The story ends in a bloodbath, before going back to The Long Bad Night. I was digging it, but the ending was lousy. Then, we see Nancy's Last Dance, where little Nancy Callahan is all grown up and out for blood. That's a story I could take or leave, but I saw other reviews saying it just wasn't right.

So, the stories don't have all the same moxie as the first movie. There is some action, some blood, plenty of sexy dames, but it doesn't hit as hard. Some things between the two flicks don't match up right. But, I loved it all the same. The sequel keeps up the trend of showing tough guys and broads all caught up in the vices, the decadence, and the vicious cycles of Basin City, which feels more and more like some kind of expressionist hell. The tropes and cliches are all there, and there are familiar faces whether we like it or not. Vengeance, power, corruption, greed, lust, all the usual themes are there.

The film looks nice and slick. Can't say the visuals are as punchy as the first flick, but it looks to me like they took what they had and made it better; the color effects, the green-screen stuff, the transitions and comic-book type of look is as clean and sharp as ever. Editing ain't too bad, although the cutting of the stories could arguably be better. The players are alright: I could probably watch Eva Green playing this bit all day long. Josh Brolin gets a lot of crap, because of the prosthetics and because he has some big shoes to fill after Clive Owen, but I didn't mind him one bit. Micky Roarke seems to be having a ball. He gets crap for his prosthetics too, but once again, I don't see what the beef is. I like Bruce Willis, but for all the time he's in this picture, I wonder what the point is. Jessica Alba is alright. I didn't mind most everybody else: Joseph Gordon Levitt fits in good, Powers Booth is ace, Ray Liotta is fine and dandy, Christopher Lloyd does okay, and I was digging the Lady GaGa cameo. If I have a problem with anything, it's wondering what Stacey Keach is doing here, looking like a giant heap under all that prosthetic crap when he didn't do much of anything, and I miss Devon Aoki as deadly little Miho (Jamie Chung isn't doing much for me). This picture has some nice-looking sets, props, costumes, and other goods. Music is really swingin'.

So, it seems like lots of people have some kind of beef with the stories, the casting changes, the prosthetics, and God knows what else. I personally enjoyed the movie all the same. If you liked the first Sin City, then this should be worth checking out. Otherwise, don't bother.

4/5 (Entertainment: Good | Stories: Pretty Good | Film: Pretty Good)