Pynchon

During the trials and tribulations of recent weeks I have been to see two films. I think that it is about time I got my finger out and wrote something about them.

"Borat".



Every day in the Extra's section of the Independent newspaper they publish a quick guide to the best five movies (plus plays, exhibitions and everything else) that are playing at the moment. I'll cheat for a moment and just repeat what they have to say about "Borat".

"Better not to think too hard about how this wicked mockumentary works its tricks. Just be ready to book a seat and laugh like a hyena."

Frankly, I couldn't have put it better myself.

"Borat" really is very, very funny. I thought that it was possibly the best out and out comedy of the year. There are spoilers in the next couple of bits, if you want to skip them.

"Borat" is not perfect.

Of course some of it was simply taking aim at soft targets (the feminist group, the crowd at the football match that were upset at the mangling of the national anthem, the three pissheads in the van).

Of course Pamela Anderson was obviously in on the joke at the end. (Would her bodyguards have let her run distressed around a car park? Nope. They would have gotten her straight out of there.)

Of course the hero is racist, sexist, ignorant (his belief in the Kazakstahn scientist who had evidence that the female brain is smaller than that of a squirrel - I might use that some time, ha! ha!) and offensive (I particularly liked the traditional Kazakstahn celebration of the "Running Of The Jew" - open mouthed shock doesn't quite cover my reaction.)

Of course some innocent and well meaning people were made to look foolish (the dinner party).

And, finally, of course the legal waters here are particularly murky. Exactly by how much were the participants misled? What did the legal releases they signed (and I'm assuming that some kind of legal release was signed) actually say?

But, do you know what? Didn't matter a jot to me. I thought "Borat" was wonderful.

One question. Are all New Yorkers really as paranoid and rude as those in the film? Surely not. Or was it the best footage that the producers came up with? Very funny, though.

Spoilers over.

"Casino Royale".



It's the ridiculous to the sublime. The ridiculous being the piece of shit that was "Die Another Day". "Casino Royale" is a sublime movie. Exactly what a Bond film is supposed to be like in the 21st century.

It's a magnificent piece of work. As tough as hell. Hard, modern, particularly uncompromising (that torture scene - eek!), action all the way, with an emotional centre, and the perfect way to take the series forward. I particularly liked the way that Bond became Bond during the movie, picking up the various elements that we have become familiar with over the years (the license to kill, the Aston Martin, the tuxedo and finally that iconic catchphrase.)

I have said it before. Daniel Craig wouldn't have been my first choice as the new Bond. I would have gone for somebody like Gerard Butler. But with one small reservation, Daniel Craig is great as Bond. Really fabulous. He looks like a boxer who has lost a couple of fights (you can see it in his face), but a man you would hesitate to mess with and would not expect to beat in hand to hand combat ever again. A thug with a veneer of sophistication. (Is that the literary Bond? I don't know. It must be 20 years since I read a Bond novel.) It's a great acting performance by Daniel Craig, which let's be honest is not something that normally matters in the lead role in a Bond film.

A while ago I wrote that I was worried a massive departure from the girls, guns, gadgets, villains and action Bond formula would alienate the fans of the movie Bond as opposed to the literary Bond. "Casino Royale" is not that massive a departure. There are no gadgets as such, but everything else mentioned above is present. (Eva Green as Vesper Lynd? Oh, yes. Tasty enough to spread on toast and eat.) It's a shame there was no time to introduce a new Q or a Moneypenny. I would have liked to have seen new actors playing those characters, even in very short scenes, but no doubt they will appear in the next film. (And the next film already looks as thought it could be quite intriguing, doesn't it? Who wants to bet that the shadowy organisation at the heart of "Casino Royale" is actually Spectre and that the head of that organisation is actually Ernst Stavos Blofeld?)

A criticism. Er... I didn't like the theme song, that much. OK. I suppose it was alright, but "Casino Royale" needed a ballad and it needed a Bassey, not soft rock. Also, that reservation about Daniel Craig that I mentioned earlier? It's that Daniel Craig comes across more as a fighter than a lover. I didn't really believe him in any of the love scenes.

"Casino Royale" is the first film that Lorraine and I have seen together for ages. (A great night out at The Electric Cinema. Sofa seat, drinks, nibbles, etc.) Lorraine really loved "Casino Royale" and she most definitely was not convinced when she heard that Daniel Craig had been cast as Bond. She had her heart set on Hugh Jackman as Bond.

Go and see. You have been instructed.