LET’S CELEBRATE PRIDE WITH THE BIRDCAGE

Elaine May (Director of The Heartbreak Kid, co-writer for Jim Henson's Labyrinth, Heaven Can Wait, Reds, and Tootise) bounces back after the disaster that was Ishtar (which she wrote and directed) with The Birdcage. She teams back up with long-time collaborator Mike Nichols (Director of Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?, The Graduate, Catch-22, Biloxi Blues, and Postcards From the Edge) to craft this American remake of La Cage Aux Folles. She penned the screenplay, and Nichols directs. The screenplay is sharp, clever, hilarious, and witty. Nichol's direction is fantastic, and he never calls attention to himself or his style.

The cast assembled is all very game for their roles. Nathan Lane (as Albert/Starina), Robin Williams (as Armand), and Hank Azaria (as Agador) are perfection in their roles. Nathan Lane as Albert/Starina remains the beating, gooey heart of the entire film. He plays a drag queen diva who hosts some insecurities regarding his body image and his relationship with Armand, the owner of the club he headlines at. Lane excels in the role, and is incredibly memorable and lovable. 

Robin Williams is tasked with playing the *ahem* straight-man to Lane's over-the-top diva. Williams is fantastic and fun as Armand. He is given some very funny material to work with despite being the more serious of the two. It's incredibly touching to see the love they both share for Armand's son, Val, and the lengths they will to go to for his happiness. Lane and Williams are perfect and unforgettable as the starring duo of the film.

Hank Azaria is also incredibly memorable as Agador, the very gay houseman who loves to wear different outlandish outfits. He's one of the most consistently funny parts of the film. Dan Futterman (perhaps best known for penning the screenplays for Capote and Foxcatcher) plays Val, Armand's son who is about to be married. The only issue is his fiance's parents are strict conservatives. At a loss, he reluctantly asks his dad and Albert to pretend to be straight for the weekend so as to impress his future in-laws. Futterman takes a character that could come across as unlikeable, and makes him very likable and even relatable. 

Calista Flockhart (best known for playing Ally McBeal on the titular TV show) plays Barbara, Val's fiance. She isn't in the film a whole lot, but comes across as very sweet and very kind. Dianne Wiest (aka Elliot's mom in E.T.) and Gene Hackman play Louise and Senator Kevin Keeley, respectively. They are the ultra-conservative parents of Barbara. It's always a joy to see Dianne Wiest on screen, and Gene Hackman shines in the third act (especially whenever he shares the screen with Nathan Lane). Christine Baranski (Best known for her roles in Cruel Intentions, Bowfinger, Dr. Seuss' How The Grinch Stole Christmas, and the Mama Mia! films) plays Katharine, Val's estranged mom, and is pretty enjoyable in her few scenes. 

The Birdcage was filmed primarily in South Beach, Miami. The Carlyle Hotel acted as the facade for the club Armand owns, and it still stands on Ocean Drive today. The many, many extras featured in the background of the movie are all fantastic, and help add life and color to the environs of the picture. 

At the end of the day, the only real complaint I have with The Birdcage is an incredibly minor and trivial one: I can't for the life of me figure out why the filmmakers chose to change Albert's stage name from Zaza (which it was in the OG film and stage musical) to Starina. Zaza is such a great, iconic name and Starina....well, I consider it a step down. That said, this is such a minor nitpick that it doesn't end up detracting anything from the overall product.

The Birdcage is a film about love, acceptance, understanding, and the lengths people will go to for the ones they love. It's a very sweet story that is still fairly powerful and poignant today. If you are looking for high-quality laughs, some touching moments, or you just want to smile and feel good...The Birdcage fits the bill. 

Side Note: The scene where the receptionist at Katharine's office is reading Nietzsche while Albert waits and applies blush is so subtly hilarious it hurts.

JURASSIC WORLD: DOMINION WON'T LET DEAD DINOSAURS LIE

 “Dodgson! Dodgson! We’ve got Dodgson here! See? Nobody cares.”

Trevorrow and crew  inherited the JP franchise, but by this third and (hopefully) final outing they have clearly run out of ideas. They fumble and stumble around, regurgitating scenes and ideas from just about every previous film (they even re-do the finale from the first Jurassic World). By this point all the magic and wonder are gone, and the last vestiges of life have been sucked dry from this once promising franchise.

Dominion suffers from a severe lack of a plot (or maybe too much plot). There are multiple twisting sub-plots that never coalesce together or amount to much of anything. The sub-plots feature a genetically engineered swarm of locusts that threaten to bring about the end of days ( That's right, we have a JP film about locusts. At least it's something different? The Dinosaurs almost act as set dressing), the kidnapping of Maisie from Fallen Kingdom, a Biosyn Dinosaur preserve where they research Dinos for pharmaceutical applications (Biosyn is the evil company that recruited Dennis Nedry in the first JP. The preserve/facility definitely reminds of the OG JP), the kidnapping of Blue's baby (whom I've nicknamed Baby Blue. This sub-plot is all but forgotten for around 90% of the film. Don't expect much Blue in Dominion either, as she's only in the first act and a scene in the last), and more. 

Colin Trevorrow is back in the director's seat and does an awful job, unable to juggle all the various sub-plots. The first two acts or so might give some people whiplash as Dominion jumps from location to location, before eventually settling down at the Biosyn preserve. There is absolutely no through-line in Dominion, and it it feels like we've seen all this done before, but better. It leads to a sense you are drowning in a sea that consists of an excess of nothing. 

The set-up that Fallen Kingdom left us with is all but ignored, which might be the most infuriating thing about Dominion. This installment had potential up the wazoo, but Trevorrow (for whatever misguided reason) thinks sticking to the same-old same-old is the best route. To think we could have had a movie about the threat of Dinosaurs living alongside humans/ humans learning to live with and survive the Dinosaurs. THAT could have been a cool time at the theaters. The big bad Dino (named the Gigantosauraus, a real Dino that actually existed) is essentially an after-thought, and isn't introduced properly until well into the third act (I will say the AA for the big bad is super impressive, though). 

The OG cast from the first JP film return (Sam Neill, Laura Dern, Jeff Goldblum, and BD Wong. Neill and Wong easily emerge as the strongest of the bunch. In fact, Wong's performance as Dr. Henry Wu might be the only consistently great thing across all the JP/JW films he appears in). Campbell Scott fills in for the role of Lewis Dodgson, and might be the weakest of the human antagonists in all of the JP/JW films. I appreciate that they chose to include the OG big bad from the first JP, unfortunately Dodgson is essentially a boring, evil Steve Jobs. 

It's nice to have the OG cast return, and their characters feel handled fairly well (They feel true to who they were in the first JP). It's appreciated that they are in the entirety of the film. Shame that Dominion waits until the final 20 minutes or so to introduce the Jurassic World main characters to the Jurassic Park main characters . 

Chris Pratt and Bryce Dallas Howard reprise their roles. They are fine, but not particularly memorable (At least Pratt looks consistently cool). Isabella Sermon returns as Maisie, and is even more grating than she was in Fallen Kingdom. DeWanda Wise (as Kayla, a cocky and cool pilot) and Mamoudou Athie (as Ramsay, one of the underlings to Dodgson) are the only memorable new actors/characters. 

The cast of characters here aren't as dumb as they were in Fallen Kingdom, but they aren't given a whole lot to do. Just about the only "great" part of Dominion is an extended Dino action scene in Malta. There isn't a whole lot of Dino action in Dominion, most of our time is spent with the human characters. The script (by Colin Trevorrow and Emily Carmichael) isn't the worst I've sampled, but definitely features some groan-worthy lines and reveals (like Ian Malcolm talking about a dog humping his leg). 

Let's hope that Dominion really is the final outing for the tired and weary JP franchise. It's been bled dry at this point, and Dominion very well might be the worst of the entire series (it's certainly the least inspired). It feels great to see the OG cast return, the practical and CGI SFX both practical and CGI mostly impress (The AA for the Giganotosaurus is very cool) , and that Malta scene is lots of fun. Unfortunately, that's about it for the good in Dominion. I really wanted to like this film. I was hoping for fun bad, but instead I got boring bad. The park is officially closed. At least we'll always have Malta.

1 STAR

JURASSIC WORLD: FALLEN KINGDOM FAILS

Before I post my review for Jurassic World: Dominion, let's play a bit of catch-up. Time to trek back to Isla Nublar with Fallen Kingdom.

In Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom, It's three years after the second 'Incident on Isla Nublar' aka the failure of Jurassic World. Isla Nublar is now home to an active volcano which is about to erupt, potentially dooming all of it's Dino inhabitants. A guilt-ridden Claire (Bryce Dallas Howard) and her reluctant ex Owen (Chris Pratt. That's right, this sequel completely walks back their relationship) are recruited by Benjamin Lockwood (James Cromwell) and his assistant Eli (Rafe Spall) to travel back to Isla Nublar on a rescue mission. Their goal: Escort the Dinos off Isla Nublar and onto a natural preserve where they will be safe. Things don't go as planned as, once again, human greed gets in the way (Why yes, this does sound similar to 'The Lost World').

J.A. Bayona directs and does a mostly fine job, handling the darker tone fairly well. Colin Trevorrow and Derek Connelly penn the script, and do an awful job. There’s some bad dialogue, but most of the problems boil down to the way characters are written. Everyone suffers from the worst decision making and is generally very dumb (including Owen and Claire)

Eli ( Rafe Spall) has some nice moments and makes for an ok villain. He makes some valid points near the end. Maisie (Isabella Sermon) is generally the smartest character in the movie, but all the good will she built up is completely erased at the very end, where she makes the worst, dumbest decision imaginable (She also makes the baffling choice to hide in her room under her covers when the Indo-Raptor is on the hunt). 

Ted Levine is given a thankless, embarrassing role as Ken, a mercenary lackey of Eli’s. He isn’t intimidating or threatening, and is pretty dumb. James Cromwell is likable as Benjamin Lockwood, a good-hearted ex-partner of Hammond’s. Unfortunately, he suffers from dumb disease like everyone else (you really needed a young girl to alert you to the evil goings-ons in your own mansion?). 

Franklin ( Justice Smith) is a whiny, annoying tech expert who has “Eat Me” written all over him. Unfortunately, he lives to whine another day. Zia (Daniella Pineda) is tolerable as a vet who works with Franklin. BD Wong is one of the few who manages to keep his head above water as Dr. Henry Wu. He is a villain, but has some ethics and remains intelligent. Jeff Goldblum returns as Dr. Ian Malcolm and is still great. He gets minimal screen time though.

Fallen Kingdom's plot is just ok. It’s not super-engaging. Fallen Kingdom also suffers from opposing messages, and the film doesn’t fall on either side. The messages end up cancelling each other out. The CGI and practical effects are top-notch. The setting of the mansion is pretty cool, and the Indo-Raptor is appropriately scary and intimidating. Unfortunately, there's not much else good here. In the end, there isn’t much to recommend in Fallen Kingdom.

1.5 STARS

RRR IS HERE TO KICK YOUR ASS!

 Imagine if you mixed together Donnie Brasco, The Raid: Redemption, Step-Brothers, and I Love You, Man. The chaotic, beautiful result would be RRR.

Set in India in the 1920s; when a young girl is stolen away from her village by the British empire, a protector (Bheem, played by N.T. Rama Rao Jr. . He is represented by water.) is dispatched to find her and bring her back. A native cop/soldier for the British Empire (Raju/Ram played by Ram Charan. He is represented by fire.) is tasked with rooting out the protector and bringing him back to his superiors alive. When the two inadvertently cross paths, they form a strong brotherly bond, unaware of who the other really is. When the truth is revealed, will their friendship shatter?

This is a 3 hour action epic about the unbreakable bond of friendship. It's appreciated that both leads are really put through the wringer. They don't breeze through their obstacles, though both are bad-asses. It's also very cool to see how the film utilizes both fire and water in the scenes where the two are featured together. The action scenes are some of the most insane, ridiculous, over-the-top, adrenaline-fueled ones you'll see (and no, I won't even attempt to describe a single one. I refuse to spoil this film. Just know that you will lose your mind, at least I did...repeatedly).

I haven't fallen for an action film this hard since The Raid: Redemption. RRR is a modern day action-epic classic. If you are at all a fan of action films or bro-mances, you owe it to yourself to seek RRR out ASAP. It's currently playing on Netflix.

5 STARS

LIGHTYEAR TAKES AUDIENCES TO INFINTY AND BEYOND

 "In 1995 Andy got a toy. The toy was from his favorite movie. This is that movie."

In Lightyear, while exploring a foreign planet Buzz Lightyear (Chris Evans) makes a SNAFU that winds up stranding him and his Star Command crew millions of miles from home. Devastated, Buzz makes it his mission to find a way to get him and his buddies home...no matter what. His attempts, however, come with a serious price. Things only get worse when a hostile force arrives on the planet.

Chris Evans voices our beloved space man, and does a fantastic job. He manages to sound similar enough to Tim Allen throughout. Evans imbues Buzz with a lot of heart. It's very easy to love his version of Buzz, and Buzz here is indeed a very cool character (Not hard at all to see why Andy went gaga over him).

Uzo Aduba voices Alisha Hawthorne, Buzz's BFF and a member of the revered Star Command. Their friendship is pretty strong, and  provides some of the backbone for the emotional core of the film. Keke Palmer voices Izzy,  an inexperienced but eager trainee who is terrified of space. She is also the daughter of Alisha. Her and her friends Mo (A trainee who is pretty inept, voiced by Taika Waititi,) and Darby (an elderly convict on parole, voiced by Dale Soules) assist Buzz on his mission. Sox (Peter Sohn), a very intelligent and friendly emotional support robotic cat, tags along. Sox is absolutely adorable and is sure to remind most of Dug from Up!.

Lightyear plays host to quite a few sci-fi influences from the past. Designs reminiscent of Alien, Star Wars, and 2001: A Space Odyssey (and more) make it into this film. This actually makes sense, seeing as (in the Toy Story universe) Lightyear was SUPPOSED to have been made back in 1995. This also accounts for some references to 90s computer tech that appear.

It's not often you get to walk into a film, not knowing exactly where it's going to go. Lightyear is one of those films. The trailers that have been released don't spoil much, and it's very satisfying to not-quite-know exactly where this trip is taking us. There's not much plot to Lightyear (and what's there is fairly thread-bare), but the focus here is on the Buzz character and some pretty great action (Oh yes, this is a fairly action-heavy/sci-fi heavy movie). 

If you grew up watching the Toy Story films, there is plenty here that will likely tickle you pink. If you haven't seen Toy Story and Toy Story 2 recently, it's probably a good idea you do so before trekking out to see Lightyear. They aren't necessary to understand what's happening in this film, but many designs for the toy version of Buzz (as well as the design of some of the environments, vehicles, and tertiary characters from those films)  make it into this flick. A good deal of Buzz's lines from the first two Toy Story films are repeated here as well, to delightful effect.

The audience I saw Lightyear with consisted mostly of families with young ones (who I imagine were too young to have grown up with the beloved iconic franchise). Pixar seems to have a certified hit on their hands, as the younger generation seemed thoroughly engaged and invested in the proceedings. It would seem this is a film that will please both those familiar and unfamiliar with the Toy Story films.

The only real complaints I had with this latest Pixar outing were it's thin-ish plot and some of the details regarding it's main villain. All that being said, I was thoroughly pleased with the product delivered. For me, this is the best we've gotten from Pixar since Inside Out. There's plenty of heart, emotion, action, humor, and sci-fi packed within, not to mention the character work for Buzz and friends is just plain great. 

It's clear Angus MacLane (who co-directed Finding Dory before this. Lightyear is his first solo outing. He impresses.) has a strong love of the Toy Story franchise and did his homework. Lightyear is a low-key brilliant movie (I was nerding out hardcore throughout the film). I couldn't recommend Lightyear more highly. As our beloved Buzz would say: "To infinity...and beyond!"

4.5 STARS

MARY SHELLEY'S FRANKENSTEIN

 Don't call it a remake.

An incredibly dramatic and over-the-top adaptation of Mary Shelley's iconic and important novel (which she penned at the young age of 18.). This is fitting, seeing as the novel itself is also incredibly dramatic and over-the top (In fact, the novel is arguably more dramatic this adaptation). Most of the novel makes it's way into the film. That said, as the novel is 148 pages long and this film is around 2 hours, changes/alterations/additions are bound to occur. Some examples include: Victor (Kenneth Branagh) and Elizabeth (Helena Bonham Carter) discuss marriage before he departs for Ingolstadt, Elizabeth travels to Ingolstadt to visit Victor while he is busy with his "studies", and Henry Clerval (a close friend of Victor's, portrayed by Tom Hulce) does not die.

Some things are left out altogether (and some events are greatly condensed, like Justine's jailing and hanging), like the creature's (Robert De Niro) comparison of himself to The Bible's Adam and Satan, and Victor's and The Creature's arguments over who is more tortured and miserable (this film also does not make many comparisons to The Creature and his creator). The wildest changes occur during the last 25 minutes. This portion takes viewers on one hell of an insane, wild ride and features one of the craziest, wildest deaths I've ever seen on screen.

Kenneth Branagh is very good as the titular Victor Frankenstein (Branagh directs this version as well, and he's ok). His take on the character isn't as much of a villain as the novel's Victor, and he isn't as prone to extreme bouts of depression and self-torture. Robert De Niro breathes fantastic life into The Creature, bringing the novel's version faithfully to the big screen. He is indeed a monster, but a tragic and sympathetic one.

In the end, none of the film versions can compare to the original novel (which is ABSOLUTELY worth a read). While the iconic 1931 movie is the superior version by far, this 1994 take is more faithful to the source material and is still worth a watch.

3.5 STARS

HOUSE OF LEAVES IS A LITERARY MASTERPIECE

"I think anyone that deals with big questions could be defined as a horror writer. If you're Melville, if you're Hawthorne, if you're Emily Dickinson. If you're Nietzsche...and I name those names not to put myself in their company — I'm just saying that you can pick a diverse range of writers who, if they really approach the deeper questions...are ultimately going to unveil something that's terrifying. "- Mark Z. Danielewski

For the first time ever I will be reviewing a novel, but not just any novel, mind you. I will be reviewing Mark Z. Danielewski's House of Leaves. House of Leaves is a gargantuan book that follows multiple different storylines and perspectives. This is a novel best read if you go in completely blind. You are still more than welcome to read my thoughts on it, but if you plan on reading the novel for yourself, it's likely best you do so first and then return to read my thoughts once you complete it.  

Johnny Truant, a Hollywood tattoo artist/delinquent in his 20s, stumbles across a mysterious unfinished manuscript in a dead man's apartment (The man was named Zampano, he was blind, and it appears he might have been murdered by some 'THING'). Johnny takes the manuscript home with him and begins to investigate. He discovers it's entitled 'The Navidson Record', and acts as an analysis and re-telling of a documentary (also titled 'The Navidson Record'). The only issue is that said documentary doesn't exist, or did exist for some point until, somehow, all traces of it vanished. 

'The Navidson Record'  tells the story of Will Navidson (an award-winning photographer) his wife Karen (who somewhat lives up to her name), and their children. The Navidson's marriage has been going through a rough patch, and so Navy (as Will is nicknamed) decides to move them into 'The House on Ash Tree Lane', which is situated in a typical suburb. Once settled in, they discover that the house is bigger on the inside than it is on the outside by 1/4 inch. Navy's curiosity gets the better of him, and he sets up multiple cameras inside the house. When a door randomly appears in the living room, Navy discovers that it leads into a hallway and the dark ever shifting/changing bowels of the house. A documentary crew is hired to help further investigate.  Naturally, things don't go well. Meanwhile, Johnny adopts the same obsession that afflicted Navy as he delves deeper into 'The Navidson Record' and attempts to uncover the truth for himself.

House of Leaves is likely my favorite novel I have ever read, and I adore how it DEMANDS an active participation/form of play/form of creative play with it (The book even provides some empty lines here and there for you to share your own thoughts or notes as you read). House of Leaves deals heavily with themes of insanity/mental illness, how does one differentiate between reality and fiction/a fake vs. the real deal, the blurring of the fine line between reality and fiction, love/relationships, the relationship between a reader and a book, obsession, possession/ownership, how critique and analysis are futile and meaningless ( same goes for the search for answers), trauma, grief, loss, and the question of authorship. House of Leaves also acts as a stinging critique of scholarly analysis/academic criticism (There are many reference sources found in the footnotes, some real, some fictional. There is also a portion where fictional quotes are attributed to real-life people, like Stephen King, for example.).

House of Leaves itself is a love letter to the written word and its many forms, as well as a horror novel (Some claim it is a love story, and they aren't wrong. Love acts as an undercurrent in the multiple storylines found within). After reading it, I can say it's one of the few books that feels absolutely alive (like it's a living thing) and it's the only book that succeeded in inducing a sense of vertigo, dizziness and disorientation in me. There is a chapter (that I call 'The Labyrinth') that, if you don't read it carefully and with purpose, will likely lead you back in a loop to the beginning of said chapter. This is exactly what happened to me during my first attempt at reading House of Leaves. I almost threw the book across the room, and ended up having to put it down for quite some time before finally deciding to pick it up and try to complete it once more. It would end up taking me a total of six months or longer to finish the entire book. 

There's a chapter near the end (which I call Exploration #5), which requires the reader to flip/rotate the book left, right, sideways, and upside-down. In this chapter, text is read left-to-right, right-to-left, ascending up the page, and descending down the page. There are even times where the text only occupies corners of the page. It was here that I completely forgot if I was reading House of Leaves front-to-back or back-to-front, or if I was holding the book right-side-up or upside-down. I had to leave the book for five minutes and take a walk around my house to reacclimate myself with my surroundings.

House of Leaves is written like a college thesis/academic dissertation, complete with copious footnotes and citations by Zampano, Johnny, and the editors of the novel ( From what I was able to uncover online, there might be as many as 450 footnotes, if not more). House of Leaves starts out like reading The Blair Witch Project, before it eventually morphs into something else entirely. While House of Leaves is clearly a work of fiction, it is written in such a way that it all feels real. Indeed, after a while I started to view it as a work of non-fiction, and the book works better when read as such. While you play with/read House of Leaves, House of Leaves plays with/reads you (There is a lot of mind-fuckery that goes on in the book). It's simply written so anyone can pick it up, but it's the content and way it's structured that is dizzying and challenging. 

The novel, much like 'The House on Ash Tree Lane', is bigger on the inside than it is on the outside. The contents expand past the cover of the book. If you peek at the page numbers, you will see that the story content seems to end around page 528, however there are numerous 'Exhibits' after  that the footnotes will direct you to ((If you include these, the page count soars to a total of 662 pages. Make that 709 pages if you count the index at the end as well). As you read, you realize there are pages that are missing or torn out, and by the time you finish flipping back and forth through the novel, the actual page count clocks in at far more than 528 pages (likely far more than 709 pages as well).  As if all this weren't enough material to investigate, recording artist Poe (Danielewski's younger sister) recorded an entire album of songs about House of Leaves that acts as supplementary material.

House of Leaves delights in teasing the reader, as it is revealed early on that Johnny has taken it upon himself to add material into the story, oftentimes without indication that said material was added after the fact. This makes it impossible to tell what parts of 'The Navidson Record' were written by Zampano and which parts were added later by Johnny. There's also the haunting implication that the entirety of House of Leaves might have been written by Truant himself. If true, then that would mean Zampano, as well as the contents of 'The Navidson Record',  were all created by Johnny (If so, then Johnny is one hell of an incredible writer). 

There are some cool artistic decisions made throughout House of Leaves. Examples include: Every time the word 'house' appears it is highlighted in blue (including when it appears in different languages), some portions of text are highlighted in red, and still others are crossed out entirely (yet can still be easily read if one desires to do so). Numerous different fonts/typeface are utilized throughout as well.  There are also numerous references and allusions to King Mino's labyrinth and the minotaur that lies in the center of it. There's the terrifying implication that that same minotaur lies at the heart of 'The House on Ash Tree Lane' (either that, or the random groaning/noises heard within the house, that are attributed to the creature, are actually just the sounds the house makes whenever it shifts or changes). House of Leaves is certainly a challenging novel, but it does subtly provide directions on how to read it's contents. It helps if you follow said directions.

Mark Z. Danielewski first came up with the central idea for House of Leaves in 1993. In 1997, he posted the entirety of House of Leaves online as a pdf file. It took two and a half years to publish the novel, which could finally be found on bookshelves in March, 2000. House of Leaves is definitely a rewarding read that leaves you with quite a lot to chew on. It's hard not to become obsessed like Johnny and Navy as you venture into the labyrinth that is House of Leaves (Thusly, finding oneself lost or disoriented while reading is to be expected.). House of Leaves is practically bursting with mysteries, all of which have no ready answer/solution except that which the reader prescribes to them. I can understand why some don't care for it, but I consider House of Leaves a masterpiece. It's a towering, impressive achievement and remains one of (if not THE) most wildly ambitious novels I have ever read.

5 STARS