F.C. Schaefer's Blog, page 6
September 26, 2022
Michael Grant is no Stan Lee: the end of the GONE saga.
Though I’ve said it in every review of the GONE saga and its spin-offs, it bears repeating that I am very far removed from the YA demographic these books are aimed at, but I good story is a good story and always worth reading. HERO is the final book in Michael Grant’s spin-off from his popular teen dystopia saga of the trapped children and teenagers in the FAYZ, the previous books in the series being MONSTER and VILLAIN. In this spin-off, mysterious meteors crash to earth and unleash a mutagenic virus giving humans various abilities, usually manifesting itself in a physical transformation. As Grant stated at the beginning, these three books were his hand at trying to create his own superhero universe extrapolated from his original series. I had some criticisms of the previous two books, but thought they worked because Grant is good writer when it comes to action, suspense, and the ability to create really good antagonists.In HERO, the Rockborn Gang—Dekka, Shade, Cruz, Malik, Armo, and Frances—having saved Las Vegas in VILLAIN, now find their hands full when another meteor comes down in New York City and creates a new and particularly nasty Big Bad. This time around, the Gang is joined by Sam Temple, Astrid Ellison, and Edilio Escobar from the original series. The plot is simple: the threat makes itself known, the Rockborn Gang confront it, have their butts kicked, regroup, double down, and come up with a plan. There is a final confrontation, which to Grant’s credit, is not an easy victory. In between there is a lot of personal drama as the protagonists sort out who they are, their feelings for one another, and the price of being a super hero and doing what has to be done to stop equally empowered villains who have no guilt when it comes to the harm they do. It is pretty much what we have seen in the other two books. And when I said Grant had a knack for writing great villains, I was talking about Vector, HERO’s main nasty, a sentient hive of insects capable of inflicting unending suffering and pain upon their victims that not even death will deliver them from. That Vector was a rapacious capitalist before being transformed is something of a trope—nobody writes about a mutated barista gone bad.
HERO is enjoyable, but it breaks no new ground, pretty much following the same path laid out in the previous two books, which is one problem I have with this spin-off series. A good trilogy should build action and suspense throughout, with the establishment of an ongoing threat at the beginning and a final well earned payoff in the finale, with conflicts and subplots resolved. What Grant did was basically write three potboilers. There is nothing wrong with that, but he managed the art of an ongoing series so well in the GONE books, it felt like a letdown here. Grant stated in the Author’s Note that it was his intention to create a superhero universe, and freely admitted to being influenced by Stan Lee’s X-Men. Another problem with HERO is that certain characters prominently featured in the first two books, like Tom Peaks and Jason DeVeere, barely made cameos in this one. I thought they would do way more with Drake Merwin, a hateful piece of work from the GONE series, who it seems was brought back for no other reason than him being a fan favorite, and that he helped strengthen the connection to the original books. It might have been better if Grant had started over from scratch when creating his super hero universe and not tied it to his previous success. It can be said that he used the tired tropes of present day super hero comics such as heavy handed diversity and overrepresentation of queer characters, though some of that might have been editorial dictates.
But the big problem with HERO is the final Big Reveal with the mysterious Watchers in the final chapter, and the cliffhanger Grant winds the series up with. I won’t go into the details except to say that I found it very unsatisfying, and disliked the way it undermined the entire GONE saga. After reading it, I couldn’t help but wonder if Grant really had his heart in this spin-off all along, and didn’t just write it to wring more money from its avid fans. In the end, he openly invites writers of fan fiction to finish the story. Michael Grant, you are no Stan Lee.
So this is where the GONE saga truly comes to an end as teen dystopias have gone out of style recently. It was a decent ride even if a tire blew on the last turn. There is still hope of a live action adaptation, but as I’ve stated in previous reviews, that might prove to be problematic now due to the content. Maybe we should just be thankful with what we’ve got on our bookshelves.
My book, BIG CRIMSON 1: THERE'S A NEW VAMPIRE IN TOWN, can be found on Amazon at: https://amzn.to/3GsBh2E
and on Smashwords at: https://bit.ly/3kIfrAb
My alternate history novel ALL THE WAY WITH JFK: AN ALTERNATE HISTORY OF 1964 can be found on Amazon at: http://amzn.to/2jVkW9m
and on Smashwords at: http://bit.ly/2kAoiAH
Visit my Goodreads author's page at:
http://bit.ly/2nxmg
Visit my Amazon author's page at: https://amzn.to/3nK6Yxv
August 10, 2022
How, in looking back, Pleasantville saw the future.
Combining fantasy, allegory, and comedy is a tough challenge, something writer-director Gary Ross (who wrote the screenplay for BIG) attempted to pull off with the film PLEASANTVILLE in 1998. The plot was simple: a pair of late ‘90s teens, brother and sister David and Jennifer, are transported into the world of an old B/W monochrome TV sitcom from the late ‘50s whose title is Pleasantville (modeled after LEAVE IT TO BEAVER and THE ADVENTURES OF OZZIE AND HARRIET among others). These very late 20th Century teenagers, played by Tobey Maguire and Reese Witherspoon, now have to conform to life as Bud and Mary Sue Parker, teen characters in a world where Mom always has meat loaf in the oven, dinner on the table when Dad gets home, no missed shots in basketball, no words in the books in the library, no drop of rain ever falls, and all the fire department has to do is get cats out of trees. Most of all, there is no acknowledgement that sex exists. David, a heretofore shy and aloof nerd, is an expert on old sitcoms, and fits right in, but his sister, a self described “slut,” is miserable. Of course the presence of these modern characters begin to have an effect on the world around them, small changes begin to compound, leading to bigger ones—Jennifer teaches her sitcom boyfriend what Lover’s Lane is really all about and he begins to notice color creeping into this world. More changes occur, and color begins to spread from one face to another. And as much as David and Jennifer change the world of Pleasantville, this world ultimately has an effect on them as well. But change is not always welcome, and an ugly resistance rears its head.
When I first saw PLEASANTVILLE on VHS the year after it was released, I was an instant fan, even though I thought director Ross hadn’t exploited his premise as seamlessly as he might have. One thing, the script never quite determines is just what are the rules of existence in the pocket universe of Pleasantville. Is this a place stuck in time, or is it a world where all the characters exist only within the parameters of the old TV plots? I also thought the political allegory was extremely heavy handed with its ultimate confrontation between monochromes and “coloreds,” almost unpleasantly so (which might have been the point). Like a lot of films of the time, PLEASANTVILLE, ended in a courtroom confrontation, in this case, one clearly inspired by TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD. Still, the film won me over because it had a lot of heart, with more than a few moving and touching scenes, and its message that people have to be free to find themselves, and pursue happiness unencumbered by strictly enforced societal conventions that often exist only to comfort those in power, was an important one to make. The story never stooped to cheap jokes and ridicule (unlike an SNL skit), which would have been easy as the restrictive conventions of the ‘50s have been a prime target ever since the decade was over. The cast of young actors (including Paul Walker, who flashes megawatt charisma the moment he’s onscreen) and old pros, William H. Macy and Joan Allen among them, really made it work. How could you not love a film where Don Knotts plays a TV repairman (a profession already on its way out in the late ‘90s) who just might be God? When Fiona Apple began to sing her wonderful cover of John Lennon and Paul McCartney’s “Across the Universe” as the credits rolled, the deal was sealed. The film was not a blockbuster hit, maybe because it seemed like a “gimmick” movie to many, but it found an audience, especially on cable and DVD. It’s a film that does demands more than one viewing, and rewards those who come back to it.
I must say that watching PLEASANTVILLE in the third decade of the 21st Century is a different experience than back when it first came out. The context of those old B/W sitcoms, deliberately bland because they were made to appeal to the widest possible audience, has changed. Back in the late ‘90s, America was governed by men and women from the high end of the Baby Boom generation; think of Bill and Hilary Clinton, Newt Gingrich, and George W. Bush, all born in the second half of the 1940s. And one thing the older children of the Greatest Generation were heavy into was nostalgia for their youth, looking back, oppressively so in many cases. Many of them saw those old shows, and thought that is the way it ought to be. It’s safe to say that is not a context shared by Americans of the same age in the 21st Century. But PLEASANTVILLE transcends toxic nostalgia, and has proven to be sadly prescient in ways not appreciated when it first came out. First, its central message that people have to be free to pursue happiness reverberates now more than ever. Joan Allen’s Mom finds sexual fulfillment outside of her TV marriage. Jeff Daniels’ soda jerk discovers a talent for painting. Reese Witherspoon’s Jennifer, freed from her old high school peer pressure, taps into a desire to learn. Tobey Maguire’s David sheds his aloofness when he stands his ground and defends his “mother” from bullies, and becomes a full person at last. Kids discover Buddy Holly, Mark Twain and J.D. Salinger, and the joys of a physical relationship. Color completes, and the process is different for everyone. But one person’s pursuit of happiness is another’s threat to a way of life, and in this, PLEASANTVILLE sadly predicted the American culture wars, simmering in the late ‘90s, but which would explode in the decades ahead. Standing his ground against the onset of change in Pleasantville is Big Bob, the glad handing mayor whose genial exterior hides a fascist core. Played by the great J.T. Walsh in one of his final roles before his untimely death, Big Bob was obviously inspired by the Red baiting ‘50s Senator Joe McCarthy, along with a number of reactionary blowhards who turn up on the political scene on a regular basis ever since. In 1998, Big Bob represented the worst part of a past hopefully fading into history, but listening to this character in the present time it is striking how much of his dialogue could be lifted word for word from any number of speeches by contemporary politicians. The sacking of Mr. Johnson’s diner, which has dared to display an erotic mural, is almost too on the nose in its depiction of the political rage readily apparent in 21st Century America.
Anyway, that is how I see it, and I’ve come to see PLEASANTVILLE as the second best American film of 1998 after SAVING PRIVATE RYAN. It deserved an Oscar nomination for Best Picture, but its lackluster performance at the box office hurt its chances, and it had to settle for some technical nominations. Besides, the Academy has never been keen on fantasy anyway. But like many films that didn’t connect with audiences in its time, PLEASANTVILLE has developed a devoted cult following. One of other sad point is made plain while watching it today: the ‘90s we remember, now feel like an old sitcom playing on a cable channel somewhere.
My book, BIG CRIMSON 1: THERE'S A NEW VAMPIRE IN TOWN, can be found on Amazon at: https://amzn.to/3GsBh2E
and on Smashwords at: https://bit.ly/3kIfrAb
My alternate history novel ALL THE WAY WITH JFK: AN ALTERNATE HISTORY OF 1964 can be found on Amazon at: http://amzn.to/2jVkW9m
and on Smashwords at: http://bit.ly/2kAoiAH
Visit my Goodreads author's page at:
http://bit.ly/2nxmg
Visit my Amazon author's page at: https://amzn.to/3nK6Yxv
When I first saw PLEASANTVILLE on VHS the year after it was released, I was an instant fan, even though I thought director Ross hadn’t exploited his premise as seamlessly as he might have. One thing, the script never quite determines is just what are the rules of existence in the pocket universe of Pleasantville. Is this a place stuck in time, or is it a world where all the characters exist only within the parameters of the old TV plots? I also thought the political allegory was extremely heavy handed with its ultimate confrontation between monochromes and “coloreds,” almost unpleasantly so (which might have been the point). Like a lot of films of the time, PLEASANTVILLE, ended in a courtroom confrontation, in this case, one clearly inspired by TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD. Still, the film won me over because it had a lot of heart, with more than a few moving and touching scenes, and its message that people have to be free to find themselves, and pursue happiness unencumbered by strictly enforced societal conventions that often exist only to comfort those in power, was an important one to make. The story never stooped to cheap jokes and ridicule (unlike an SNL skit), which would have been easy as the restrictive conventions of the ‘50s have been a prime target ever since the decade was over. The cast of young actors (including Paul Walker, who flashes megawatt charisma the moment he’s onscreen) and old pros, William H. Macy and Joan Allen among them, really made it work. How could you not love a film where Don Knotts plays a TV repairman (a profession already on its way out in the late ‘90s) who just might be God? When Fiona Apple began to sing her wonderful cover of John Lennon and Paul McCartney’s “Across the Universe” as the credits rolled, the deal was sealed. The film was not a blockbuster hit, maybe because it seemed like a “gimmick” movie to many, but it found an audience, especially on cable and DVD. It’s a film that does demands more than one viewing, and rewards those who come back to it.
I must say that watching PLEASANTVILLE in the third decade of the 21st Century is a different experience than back when it first came out. The context of those old B/W sitcoms, deliberately bland because they were made to appeal to the widest possible audience, has changed. Back in the late ‘90s, America was governed by men and women from the high end of the Baby Boom generation; think of Bill and Hilary Clinton, Newt Gingrich, and George W. Bush, all born in the second half of the 1940s. And one thing the older children of the Greatest Generation were heavy into was nostalgia for their youth, looking back, oppressively so in many cases. Many of them saw those old shows, and thought that is the way it ought to be. It’s safe to say that is not a context shared by Americans of the same age in the 21st Century. But PLEASANTVILLE transcends toxic nostalgia, and has proven to be sadly prescient in ways not appreciated when it first came out. First, its central message that people have to be free to pursue happiness reverberates now more than ever. Joan Allen’s Mom finds sexual fulfillment outside of her TV marriage. Jeff Daniels’ soda jerk discovers a talent for painting. Reese Witherspoon’s Jennifer, freed from her old high school peer pressure, taps into a desire to learn. Tobey Maguire’s David sheds his aloofness when he stands his ground and defends his “mother” from bullies, and becomes a full person at last. Kids discover Buddy Holly, Mark Twain and J.D. Salinger, and the joys of a physical relationship. Color completes, and the process is different for everyone. But one person’s pursuit of happiness is another’s threat to a way of life, and in this, PLEASANTVILLE sadly predicted the American culture wars, simmering in the late ‘90s, but which would explode in the decades ahead. Standing his ground against the onset of change in Pleasantville is Big Bob, the glad handing mayor whose genial exterior hides a fascist core. Played by the great J.T. Walsh in one of his final roles before his untimely death, Big Bob was obviously inspired by the Red baiting ‘50s Senator Joe McCarthy, along with a number of reactionary blowhards who turn up on the political scene on a regular basis ever since. In 1998, Big Bob represented the worst part of a past hopefully fading into history, but listening to this character in the present time it is striking how much of his dialogue could be lifted word for word from any number of speeches by contemporary politicians. The sacking of Mr. Johnson’s diner, which has dared to display an erotic mural, is almost too on the nose in its depiction of the political rage readily apparent in 21st Century America.
Anyway, that is how I see it, and I’ve come to see PLEASANTVILLE as the second best American film of 1998 after SAVING PRIVATE RYAN. It deserved an Oscar nomination for Best Picture, but its lackluster performance at the box office hurt its chances, and it had to settle for some technical nominations. Besides, the Academy has never been keen on fantasy anyway. But like many films that didn’t connect with audiences in its time, PLEASANTVILLE has developed a devoted cult following. One of other sad point is made plain while watching it today: the ‘90s we remember, now feel like an old sitcom playing on a cable channel somewhere.
My book, BIG CRIMSON 1: THERE'S A NEW VAMPIRE IN TOWN, can be found on Amazon at: https://amzn.to/3GsBh2E
and on Smashwords at: https://bit.ly/3kIfrAb
My alternate history novel ALL THE WAY WITH JFK: AN ALTERNATE HISTORY OF 1964 can be found on Amazon at: http://amzn.to/2jVkW9m
and on Smashwords at: http://bit.ly/2kAoiAH
Visit my Goodreads author's page at:
http://bit.ly/2nxmg
Visit my Amazon author's page at: https://amzn.to/3nK6Yxv
August 8, 2022
THE INSTITUTE is a reminder of why Stephen King was such an influence on STRANGER THINGS.
This Constant Reader picked up a copy of Stephen King’s THE INSTITUTE last Christmas, and finally got around to reading it. As a very long time fan of King’s work, I’ll gladly read almost anything he puts out, but I’m more than willing to concede that much of his 21st Century output often falls short of his great early works. That might just be natural as The King does often recycle tropes and themes he explored thoroughly in previous books. I don’t necessarily think that is a bad thing. THE INSTITUTE could easily be described as King Classic as he again tells a story with kids possessing the psychic powers, often telekinesis and telepathy (CARRIE and FIRESTARTER, and recently DOCTOR SLEEP), a mysterious and sinister quasi government organization that do not have the best interests of the protagonists at heart (The Shop), colorful small town characters (start with SALEM’S LOT), and a knockabout male character who turns out to be a rock when things hit the fan (Stu Redman from THE STAND). THE INSTITUTE centers on 12 year old Luke Ellis, a kid from Minnesota who happens to have a genius level IQ. Not only that, but Luke is showing signs of incipient telekinesis. One night, intruders break into Luke’s home, murder his parents, and abduct him away to an installation in the Maine woods where Luke’s powers are forcibly developed and used for mysterious purposes. If Luke, and the friends he makes among the other kidnapped children, cooperate, then they are given tokens for vending machines and not treated harshly. If they resist, they are punished as if they are Al Qaeda. It is abundantly apparent that the adults in charge are not interested in the welfare of these children, only what they can squeeze out of their brains before they are tossed away like used batteries. No one has ever escaped from this place, but Luke puts his IQ to work on the challenge and with the help of his newly made friends, comes up with a plan and puts it into action. I found a lot to like in THE INSTITUTE, not the least in that it is well written. My paperback copy comes in at just over 650 pages, not a short read, but I found that the story moved along at a good pace. Right from the start, King violates one of the rules of novel writing 101 by not introducing his main protagonist first, but instead we get the story of Tim Jamison, a former Florida cop and how he gets the job of night knocker in the very small South Carolina town of DuPray before the story shifts to Luke and his impending kidnapping in Minnesota. We know these two plot threads will meet at some point, and the anticipation of how and why is planted. The suspense is built nicely as Luke encounters the occupants at the Institute, and enough of the truth is slowly revealed to raise the level of tension. By far the best part of the book is when Luke is on the run with no one to turn to for help, and desperate to put as much distance as he can between himself and his tormentors, who will soon discover his escape and come looking. This part of the book is King at his storytelling best. The author has always had a true talent for creating compelling and sympathetic young characters, and it is full display here, not just with Luke, but also Avery, Kalesha, Nick, and George, other luckless young occupants of the Institute. As with most horror and suspense novels, a lot rides on how well the antagonists are drawn, are they villains who inspire fear. The men and women who run the place that imprisons Luke and his friends are clearly drawn from the men and women who ran the Nazi concentration camps, the cogs in the death machine. They also have more than a slight resemblance to the torturers at Abu Ghraib. If Mrs. Sigsby and Trevor Stackhouse don’t at first appear to be on the same level as some the other monstrosities King has created, I would say look again. They are lovers of authority, happy to serve whatever the whims are of those above them, and more than happy to wield it ruthlessly over those below them. The kind of people who “get the job done no matter what.” They remind us that the worst monsters are not always supernatural. I do like how King makes a point to show that the Institute has more than a little internal sloppiness, which does occur over the long haul in many enterprises when expectations are allowed to sag, and things just roll along like they always have. The weakest part of the book is the resolution, a common complaint among King fans. I think the story came easy to King up through the final confrontation, but then comes a clunky and talky sequence meant to resolve the remaining lose ends that is not nearly as satisfying as what has come before.
A number of reviewers have compared THE INSTITUTE to Netlix’s STRANGER THINGS. They share many similarities, but it should be remembered that the Duffer brothers were inspired by King’s work from back in the ‘80s which had young characters who could move objects and start fires with their minds. Like I said, this is classic King pouring some old ingredients into a new bottle. And if THE INSTITUTE is adapted to a film, I think it would be a great opportunity for that other successful Steve from the ‘80s named Spielberg to finally collaborate with The King.
My book, BIG CRIMSON 1: THERE'S A NEW VAMPIRE IN TOWN, can be found on Amazon at: https://amzn.to/3GsBh2E
and on Smashwords at: https://bit.ly/3kIfrAb
My alternate history novel ALL THE WAY WITH JFK: AN ALTERNATE HISTORY OF 1964 can be found on Amazon at: http://amzn.to/2jVkW9m
and on Smashwords at: http://bit.ly/2kAoiAH
Visit my Goodreads author's page at:
http://bit.ly/2nxmg
Visit my Amazon author's page at: https://amzn.to/3nK6Yxv
July 17, 2022
This is not The God of Thunder we knew.
I am a lifelong reader of Marvel comics, and have consistently tried to see every single MCU film in the theater going back to the first Captain America film. I was blown away by INFINITY WAR and ENDGAME, and unlike some fans that have soured on Marvel’s super hero adventures after the latter, I’ve hung in there, finding a lot to like even in film efforts that paled when compared to what came before. Though Robert Downey Jr. and Chris Evans have retired their parts as Tony Stark and Steve Rogers, there was still the consolation that Chris Hemsworth would continue as Thor, the Asgardian God of Thunder. Hemsworth is a perfect fit in the role, with a real movie star’s physical presence, and a good sense for comedy, two attributes that are not always evident in others. For these reasons, I was really looking forward to THOR: LOVE AND THUNDER, the first stand alone Thor adventure since the excellent THOR: RAGNAROK back in 2017.
Sadly, I was disappointed. Though I didn’t find LOVE AND THUNDER to be the disaster some fans did, I thought the film was done in by a script and a director that took the God of Thunder down the wrong path in a big way. I have admired a lot of Taika Waititi’s work in the past, especially on RAGNAROK and JOJO RABBIT, but this time he leaned into the humor way too much, doubling down, and then tripling down, on the humorous elements that worked so well in RAGNAROK, but forgetting that there needs to be some heart and sincere emotion for the humor to play off. That’s something that even a lesser MCU film like last summer’s BLACK WIDOW pulled off well. LOVE AND THUNDER picks up post ENDGAME where Thor is roaming the galaxy with the GUARDIANS, enjoying the adventures of being Space Viking. But soon, he is back on earth trying to hunt down a villain going by the name of Gorr the God Butcher, who, for reasons of his own, is going about systematically killing off all the mythical Gods of the many civilizations spread throughout the universe. This is where Thor, and his trusty sidekick Korg (CGI, but voiced by Waititi) meet up with his old flame, Jane Foster, who is now wielding the hammer, Mjolnir, and going by the name of Lady Thor. After an awkward reunion, Thor, Jane, Korg, and Valkyrie (again played by Tessa Thompson) are off in search of help to fight Gorr, who has kidnapped the children of New Asgard. What drags this plot down is the incessant humor, with most of the jokes centered on Thor being a clueless oaf, and his relationship with his ex, who is now his equal when it comes to super heroics. And for the first two thirds of the film, that is just about all it is: setup and punch line…setup and punch line…repeat and repeat. And in case we didn’t get the joke, Korg says something to underline it. The God of Thunder himself is reduced to being a big muscle bound doofus in scene after scene, a far cry from the prideful and earnest character trying to do what is right and be worthy that we knew in The Avengers films and his own earlier solo screen appearances. I agree with those who say that much of the film felt like badly written SNL skit—especially Zeus’s lightning bolt, which looked as if it had been found in NBC’s prop room. Having Matt Damon, Sam Neill, and Luke Hemsworth (joined by newcomer Melissa McCarthy) reprise their cameos from RAGNAROK only diminished the joke, and the GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY were totally superfluous the story. There should be a new rule that cameos have to be pertinent to the plot in some way. I have no idea what they were going for in Russell Crowe’s small part as Zeus, a part played in a way that seemed to belong in another movie. And the deficits in the script only highlighted how badly this film relied on CGI effects.
Only in the final third, when there is a showdown with Gorr, does the story switch gears, and it feels like we’re in a real super hero film. And that is because Christian Bale, who plays Gorr, really does show up and give a heartfelt performance. Gorr’s origin in the pre-credits opening is well done, and anytime Bale was onscreen, everything is kicks up a notch. But even he was hurt by an inconsistent script that had Gorr, traumatized by the loss of his daughter, turn around and terrorize the children of New Asgard.
But despite my criticism, I won’t say I hate LOVE AND THUNDER and consider the MCU dead the way many online have done. If you don’t ask much of it, the film is entertaining, and I did like seeing the Marvel concept of Eternity brought to the screen. But mostly, I’m left with a sense of an opportunity missed. We didn’t get a rousing adventure with a self described Space Viking, which would have been nice. But most of all, we don’t get an idea of where the MCU is heading in this next phase. There were two post credits scene, one of which implied that a dead character might have a way back into the MCU, and in the other, we briefly glimpse a super powered being not shown before. I was hoping for something dealing with the next GUARDIANS film, or maybe a hint at who the Big Bad will be in this next phase. Then there is the introduction of the X-Men and the Fantastic Four to the MCU proper after MULTIVERSE OF MADNESS. It would have been nice to see some progress on that front. I know Covid has scrambled the time table for the MCU after ENDGAME, but right now, it feels as if they are simply treading water. And more films like LOVE AND THUNDER will burn up a lot of goodwill with fans like me.
I am an indie author and my latest novel is ALL THE WAY WITH JFK: AN ALTERNATE HISTORY OF 1964. It is available at the following:
http://amzn.to/2jVkW9m on Amazon
http://bit.ly/2kAoiAH at Smashwords
And coming soon, my vampire trilogy, Big Crimson.
Visit my Goodreads author's page at:
http://bit.ly/2nxmg
Sadly, I was disappointed. Though I didn’t find LOVE AND THUNDER to be the disaster some fans did, I thought the film was done in by a script and a director that took the God of Thunder down the wrong path in a big way. I have admired a lot of Taika Waititi’s work in the past, especially on RAGNAROK and JOJO RABBIT, but this time he leaned into the humor way too much, doubling down, and then tripling down, on the humorous elements that worked so well in RAGNAROK, but forgetting that there needs to be some heart and sincere emotion for the humor to play off. That’s something that even a lesser MCU film like last summer’s BLACK WIDOW pulled off well. LOVE AND THUNDER picks up post ENDGAME where Thor is roaming the galaxy with the GUARDIANS, enjoying the adventures of being Space Viking. But soon, he is back on earth trying to hunt down a villain going by the name of Gorr the God Butcher, who, for reasons of his own, is going about systematically killing off all the mythical Gods of the many civilizations spread throughout the universe. This is where Thor, and his trusty sidekick Korg (CGI, but voiced by Waititi) meet up with his old flame, Jane Foster, who is now wielding the hammer, Mjolnir, and going by the name of Lady Thor. After an awkward reunion, Thor, Jane, Korg, and Valkyrie (again played by Tessa Thompson) are off in search of help to fight Gorr, who has kidnapped the children of New Asgard. What drags this plot down is the incessant humor, with most of the jokes centered on Thor being a clueless oaf, and his relationship with his ex, who is now his equal when it comes to super heroics. And for the first two thirds of the film, that is just about all it is: setup and punch line…setup and punch line…repeat and repeat. And in case we didn’t get the joke, Korg says something to underline it. The God of Thunder himself is reduced to being a big muscle bound doofus in scene after scene, a far cry from the prideful and earnest character trying to do what is right and be worthy that we knew in The Avengers films and his own earlier solo screen appearances. I agree with those who say that much of the film felt like badly written SNL skit—especially Zeus’s lightning bolt, which looked as if it had been found in NBC’s prop room. Having Matt Damon, Sam Neill, and Luke Hemsworth (joined by newcomer Melissa McCarthy) reprise their cameos from RAGNAROK only diminished the joke, and the GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY were totally superfluous the story. There should be a new rule that cameos have to be pertinent to the plot in some way. I have no idea what they were going for in Russell Crowe’s small part as Zeus, a part played in a way that seemed to belong in another movie. And the deficits in the script only highlighted how badly this film relied on CGI effects.
Only in the final third, when there is a showdown with Gorr, does the story switch gears, and it feels like we’re in a real super hero film. And that is because Christian Bale, who plays Gorr, really does show up and give a heartfelt performance. Gorr’s origin in the pre-credits opening is well done, and anytime Bale was onscreen, everything is kicks up a notch. But even he was hurt by an inconsistent script that had Gorr, traumatized by the loss of his daughter, turn around and terrorize the children of New Asgard.
But despite my criticism, I won’t say I hate LOVE AND THUNDER and consider the MCU dead the way many online have done. If you don’t ask much of it, the film is entertaining, and I did like seeing the Marvel concept of Eternity brought to the screen. But mostly, I’m left with a sense of an opportunity missed. We didn’t get a rousing adventure with a self described Space Viking, which would have been nice. But most of all, we don’t get an idea of where the MCU is heading in this next phase. There were two post credits scene, one of which implied that a dead character might have a way back into the MCU, and in the other, we briefly glimpse a super powered being not shown before. I was hoping for something dealing with the next GUARDIANS film, or maybe a hint at who the Big Bad will be in this next phase. Then there is the introduction of the X-Men and the Fantastic Four to the MCU proper after MULTIVERSE OF MADNESS. It would have been nice to see some progress on that front. I know Covid has scrambled the time table for the MCU after ENDGAME, but right now, it feels as if they are simply treading water. And more films like LOVE AND THUNDER will burn up a lot of goodwill with fans like me.
I am an indie author and my latest novel is ALL THE WAY WITH JFK: AN ALTERNATE HISTORY OF 1964. It is available at the following:
http://amzn.to/2jVkW9m on Amazon
http://bit.ly/2kAoiAH at Smashwords
And coming soon, my vampire trilogy, Big Crimson.
Visit my Goodreads author's page at:
http://bit.ly/2nxmg
July 6, 2022
Once Upon A Time in Hollywood: the novel by Tarantino.
I am a huge fan of Quentin Tarantino’s ONCE UPON A TIME IN HOLLYWOOD. It just might be the best film of the past decade, and just about my favorite one, though QT is always an easy sell with me. So of course I was going to buy and read his novel based on the film. Tarantino has never actually written and published a book before, so for us fans it was a big deal. Was it worth the price? Did it live up to expectations? Is Tarantino as good of a storyteller on the printed page as he is on the movie screen? I think every fan may have a different answer, for this book is very much written for the fans. If you haven’t seen the movie, you are really going to be in over your head reading it. This book, like the film, is definitely not plot driven, we simply hang with a set of characters for a set period of time in the Hollywood of 1969, get to know them, and wait for the inevitable conclusion when a certain group of hippie killers collide with a has-been TV western star and his loyal stuntman friend. Only in the book, that ending of the film is just mentioned in passing about halfway, for this is not a straight screen to page novelization of the film, but mainly a companion piece to it where the author/director fills in some back stories, and elaborates on what was happening behind the scenes. In the book, we again meet up with Rick Dalton, the former star of Bounty Law, now reduced to guest spots on other actor’s shows and contemplating traveling to Italy and Spain to make spaghetti westerns for Sergio Corbucci, which Rick sees as the ultimate degradation, and Cliff Booth, a hero of WWII and veteran stuntman with some unsavory incidents in his past. We also spend some time with Sharon Tate, the beautiful starlet on the verge of major stardom, and married to the very hot director, thanks to Rosemary’s Baby, Roman Polanski. And lurking around is Charles Manson, the leader of a hippie “family” made up of cast off and runway kids, the epitome of the counter culture, who in reality, just badly wanted to be a rock star, if only the powers that be wouldn’t keep brushing him off. We learn a lot about Rick’s early days in TV westerns and how the industry worked in those days, and Cliff’s background is fleshed out, and the question of whether he murdered his wife is answered. We meet up with Sharon in a flashback that poignantly recounts her journey from Texas to Los Angeles to seek her fortune in the movie business, and later on her visit to the movie theater where the Matt Helm film where she was a featured player is playing. There are some interesting anecdotes on TV in the ‘60s told by Rick that is clearly Tarantino just riffing on the past, and the same with a section where Cliff muses on his favorite foreign films that is clearly the author speaking. There are long passages where the pilot script of the western TV series Lancer is gone into in great detail, which makes it sound much more dramatic and interesting than a show that came in on the tail end of the TV western fad in the late ‘60s and soon faded into obscurity. Lots of now obscure names are dropped, everybody from George Maharis to George Peppard to Ty Hardin to Kaz Garas, and if you haven’t heard of them, they were big deals for a very short time in Hollywood long ago. There was a section on the excessive drinking habits of some famous actors of the time that is interesting if true. Tarantino often touches on how fleeting fame is in a cruel business that uses talent and throws it away. This is made plain in a sad encounter Cliff has in Spain with the wreck that was once Aldo Ray. Fame, attention, adoration and the wealth and sex that came with it was the measure that everyone was judged against, and once you’d obtained it, you were never free of the fear of losing it. And if you felt it slipping away, you scrambled and grabbed at anything which would get it back. In 1969, guys who wore pompadours and were big deals when Kennedy was President, now had to put on hippie wigs and fake moustaches in order to try and fit in among the long hairs and denims of a new Hollywood.
Though many readers have complained that parts of this book are indulgent, while other parts are just a wallow in a past that they know nothing about, I’m not among them. I totally dug the vibe of this book, and happily went along for the ride, trusting in where Tarantino was taking me. I like that Tarantino really has genuine affection for this time and place, and the people who made it so unique—the rising stars, the has-beens, and the never-weres. He doesn’t judge them, except for the truly evil Manson, he just asks us to take them as they were, and the stories their lives told. Other writers on this period would be quick to condemn the casual sexism, racism, homophobia, and “toxic masculinity,” of 1969, but Tarantino, never one to parade his virtue, lets the time and place speak for itself, and the reader take from it what they will. There’s a part of me that hopes he is not completely done with Rick and Cliff yet. Maybe a sequel that gives us a hint at what happened in the years ahead. Does the fame that would come after dispatching a gang of hippie killers lead Rick to a comeback? Does Cliff find a new career as a director of ‘70s action films?
And I really liked it that the book was produced like a mass market paperback from the era, always thought it was a mistake for the publishing industry to get away from that model. Like 1969, one more thing that came and went, and is fondly remembered.
My book, BIG CRIMSON 1: THERE'S A NEW VAMPIRE IN TOWN, can be found on Amazon at: https://amzn.to/3GsBh2E
and on Smashwords at: https://bit.ly/3kIfrAb
My alternate history novel ALL THE WAY WITH JFK: AN ALTERNATE HISTORY OF 1964 can be found on Amazon at: http://amzn.to/2jVkW9m
and on Smashwords at: http://bit.ly/2kAoiAH
Visit my Goodreads author's page at:
http://bit.ly/2nxmg
Visit my Amazon author's page at: https://amzn.to/3nK6Yxv
May 15, 2022
The making of The Wild Bunch, one hell of a story.
Right up front, I have to say that I am a massive fan of THE WILD BUNCH, a movie I consider to be in the same league as CITIZEN KANE, REBEL WITHOUT A CAUSE, and THE GODFATHER as among the finest American films ever made. W.K. Stratton, the author of THE WILD BUNCH: SAM PECKINPAH, A REVOLUTION IN HOLLYWOOD, & THE MAKING OF A LEGENDARY FILM is a huge fan as well. And Stratton’s book is certainly written for other fans like me, but I think those unfamiliar with the details of how this classic western came to be, and why it has endured, will learn a lot. Upon its release in the summer of 1969, THE WILD BUNCH caused an uproar with its depiction of violence, both in its opening scene, where a group of aging outlaws attempt to rob a railroad office in 1913 Texas, to its finale, where the surviving members of the gang try to redeem themselves by saving a fellow outlaw from a sadistic Mexican general, taking on a small army in the process. The use of squibs to replicate bullet wounds, a new technological advance, took movie carnage to new level, and not everyone was pleased. The film was savaged by many critics, embraced by others (including a young Roger Ebert) and hotly debated in a way very few movies are anymore. THE WILD BUNCH was controversial, it made an impact, and its legacy has been enormous.Stratton’s book does cover some familiar ground for anyone who has read the works of Paul Seydor, along with David Weddle’s in-depth biography of Sam Peckinpah. What Stratton does is give us a deep dive into how THE WILD BUNCH went from a movie stuntman’s idea in the early ‘60s, to a written screenplay shopped around to studios, to how it landed in the hands of Sam Peckinpah, a director who had endured several years of being on a Hollywood blacklist because he couldn’t get along with producers, to a full-fledged production on location in northern Mexico with the enthusiastic backing of the head of Warner Brothers. The star of the book, of course, is Peckinpah, a director with demons, not to mention a drinking problem. Already middle-aged, Peckinpah knew this film was his last chance to be someone of consequence in Hollywood. Like many great directors, Peckinpah led his crew and actors like a general leading an army into battle. He could be tough to get along with, but he knew how to get the best out of everyone, and possessed a clear vision of what he wanted up on the screen; if he didn’t know how to achieve it, he would figure out a way. But Stratton makes it more than just the story of the colorful director. The contributions of Roy Sickner and Walon Green to the original script are documented, especially how Green worked the Mexican Revolution of 1910 into the story. Cliff Coleman, Chalo Gonzales, Gordon Dawson, Phil Feldman, and Kenneth Heyman, not well known names, but they each played pivotal roles in the making of the film, and this book gives them their due. Stratton offers up thumbnail sketches of actors William Holden, Ernest Borgnine, Robert Ryan, and Edmond O’Brien, who, like the characters they played, were considered past their prime, but would give, under Peckinpah’s direction, the best performances of their careers. We get insights into Warren Oates and Ben Johnson, both of whom are revered today by western fans, not to mention Strother Martin and L.Q. Jones. They would become known as the “Peckinpah stock company.” Stratton also gives space to the members of the Mexican film-making industry who played a vital part in the production, not the least of them being legendary director Emilio Fernandez, the fearsome “El Indio” himself. And I do commend Stratton for spotlighting the various Mexican actresses who played small (this really wasn’t a woman’s picture), but still necessary roles in the story. More than anything, I enjoyed reading about the creative process, and how it worked during the production, which seems to have included the improvising of key lines of dialogue on the set. The “Battle of the Bloody Porch,” along with the heist of the guns from the train, and blowing of the bridge across the Rio Grande, are among the most memorable scenes in movie history, and how they came about is the story of creative people and seasoned professionals meshing their talents in a way that is almost pure magic. So too are the ways Peckinpah worked various themes into the film, not the least of which is man’s seemingly bottomless capacity for violence and cruelty, along with the dehumanization brought on by modern technology, and the clinging to of a sense of honor, even among ruthless killers.
At just over 300 pages, Stratton’s book is concise; he packs a lot into each page. The chapters are short, most of them vignettes centering on some particular aspect of, or player in, the production. I especially liked the story of how a Mexican-American family from the Mid-West, who were stranded in Mexico after running out of money while visiting relatives, were given jobs by Peckinpah on the movie set to earn enough to get back home. One criticism I can make is that this book could have used a stronger narrative, and woven its story in a more seamless style. The book is both history and commentary, which might confuse some readers when it switches from one to the other. Some of the facts asserted are clearly nothing more than gossip, and at times Stratton does leave himself open to accusations of being a fan boy. But in the end, I think he does justice to a movie that, in the years since its release, has become beloved by cinephiles born long after 1969. Its impact on other film-makers has been considerable. In many ways Peckinpah’s THE WILD BUNCH is to American film what Kurosawa’s THE SEVEN SAMURAI is to Japan. And after reading this book, I’ve come to the conclusion that the story of the making of THE WILD BUNCH would make a great script, and a film, in its own right, working perfectly as a companion to Tarantino’s ONCE UPON A TIME IN HOLLYWOOD.
Get started on my horror trilogy at BIG CRIMSON 1: THERE'S A NEW VAMPIRE IN TOWN, found on Amazon at: https://amzn.to/3GsBh2E
and on Smashwords at: https://bit.ly/3kIfrAb
My alternate history novel ALL THE WAY WITH JFK: AN ALTERNATE HISTORY OF 1964 can be found on Amazon at: http://amzn.to/2jVkW9m
and on Smashwords at: http://bit.ly/2kAoiAH
Visit my Goodreads author's page at:
https://bit.ly/47dOR5N
Visit my Amazon author's page at: https://amzn.to/3nK6Yxv
May 8, 2022
Stephen Strange and Sam Raimi, a perfect match
Some of us were more than a little concerned where the Marvel Cinematic Universe was going after AVENGERS: ENDGAME concluded the battle with Thanos, and the deaths and retirements of some big name superheroes that had helped carry the franchise for years. With Steve Rogers and Tony Stark out of the picture, would guys like Stephen Strange be enough to step up and fill the gap, and help carry the MCU to the next phase? Well, as far as I’m concerned DOCTOR STRANGE AND THE MULTIVERSE OF MADNESS, a sequel to the first Doctor Strange film, which came out all the way back in 2016, answers that question with a resounding “yes.” MULTIVERSE OF MADNESS is one of the better installments in the MCU, one that gives the diehard fans plenty of satisfaction, while building on what has gone before, and dropping a few hints as to where things go from here.
At just over two hours, MULTIVERSE OF MADNESS does not waste time throwing us into the action, introducing us in the first scene to America Chavez, a young woman who has the power to jump from one universe to another, filled with alternate earths populated by alternate versions of both heroes and villains. The twist to this is that a hero on one earth might not necessarily be a person of virtue on another one. America is being pursued by inter-dimensional demons who want to possess her power. Arriving on “our” earth, America turns to Doctor Strange for help, something she has done on other earths with less than stellar results. It soon becomes apparent that the main villain is The Scarlet Witch, aka Wanda Maximoff, who after the events of WANDAVISION, is now determined to be reunited with her sons, Billy and Tommy, by any means necessary, and that includes taking America’s power in order to find an alternate universe where her sons still exist. Doctor Strange and America are soon universe hopping in order to evade the incredibly powerful Scarlet Witch, but are also trying to get their hands on the Darkhold and the Book of Vishanti, two magical McGuffins necessary in order to defeat the Witch. This battle takes the usual many twists and turns before a resolution is reached, and no one is unscathed in the end. The script is tight, and manages to avoid getting bogged down in exposition, while getting us invested in the characters, something ETERNALS didn’t quite pull off.
MULTIVERSE OF MADNESS marks the return of director Sam Raimi to the superhero genre after giving us not only the Tobey Maguire SPIDER-MAN films, but also DARKMAN back in the day. This is Raimi’s first film set completely in the MCU, and I must say that he and the corner of the Marvel universe occupied by Stephen Strange are a very good fit. Raimi unpacks a lot of his EVIL DEAD series tropes and puts them to good use here, especially in the gloriously and wickedly evil looking demons our heroes confront, not to mention a reanimated corpse that is major part of the final confrontation, to tomes like the Darkhold, a book written by evil Elder Gods that exact a price upon all who read from it and use its power. Two other things struck me about Raimi’s film: it is gorgeous looking, with a great use of primary colors in many scenes, and that it is quite violent. The former is on display when Doctor Strange and America travel to a different earth where flowers grow on the sides of buildings and the light is bright, quite the contrast to the equally impressive night world view of THE BATMAN. The latter is seen when a monstrous sized demon’s eyeball is ripped from its head, and an alternate superhero is literally cut in half.
What excites most of us Marvel fans is how MULTIVERSE OF MADNESS opens the door, and allows the Fantastic Four, the Inhumans, and the X-Men to at least plant their foot in the MCU. They may be alternate earth versions of Reed Richards, Black Bolt, and Professor X, but they are now technically in the same world that encompasses Spider-Man. And it is a treat to see John Krasinski, Anson Mount, and Patrick Stewart bring these iconic characters to this world at this time. The scene where The Scarlet Witch confronts The Illuminati is one of the true benchmarks of the MCU and raises intriguing questions for the future. It’s a scene that will spark much debate among Marvel fans over the fates of some heroes, and just who should have been able to outthink or outfight The Scarlet Witch. The other strength of this film is the casting, starting with Benedict Cumberbatch as Stephen Strange, a role he now inhabits as comfortably as Sean Connery did with 007; what is best about Cumberbatch’s portrayal is while Strange is a hero who will do what is right, he is also cocky, arrogant, and quick to take risks that have unforeseen consequences. All of this makes him so much better as a character than a paragon of virtue like Brie Larson’s Captain Marvel. Having Elisabeth Olsen’s Wanda be an antagonist who is a fallen hero rather than just an ugly Big Bad is another of the film’s strengths. Chiwetel Ejiofor is back as a different version of Mordo, who is menacing for different reasons. And Wong, played by Benedict Wong is high on my list of favorite MCU characters. I can’t be the only one who feels that way. Xochitl Gomez makes a good impression as America Chavez, and Rachel McAdams is back as differing versions of Christine Palmer, the love of Stephen Strange’s life. Good to see Lashana Lynch back as an alternate version of Maria Rambeau, and if this is a Sam Raimi movie, then there’s a funny cameo by Bruce Campbell. And Danny Elfman does his usual magic with the score.
The biggest criticism of MULTIVERSE OF MADNESS is that one has have watched a lot of the MCU, not to mention read more than a few comics, to know what is going on, and who is who, and what is there relationship to everyone else. If you don’t know where Wundergore is and why it is significant, then you’re probably going to be lost; this film is definitely not an entry point for the MCU. The movie gives a few clues as to where Phase 4 of the MCU might be headed, especially in a mid credits scene (welcome aboard Charlize Theron) that sets up a third Doctor Strange solo film. My hope would be that the arrival of America Chavez might lead us to a Young Avengers spin-off, something I’ve been hoping to see for years.
I am an indie author and my latest novel is ALL THE WAY WITH JFK: AN ALTERNATE HISTORY OF 1964. It is available at the following:
http://amzn.to/2jVkW9m on Amazon
http://bit.ly/2kAoiAH at Smashwords
Visit my Goodreads author's page at:
http://bit.ly/2nxmg
At just over two hours, MULTIVERSE OF MADNESS does not waste time throwing us into the action, introducing us in the first scene to America Chavez, a young woman who has the power to jump from one universe to another, filled with alternate earths populated by alternate versions of both heroes and villains. The twist to this is that a hero on one earth might not necessarily be a person of virtue on another one. America is being pursued by inter-dimensional demons who want to possess her power. Arriving on “our” earth, America turns to Doctor Strange for help, something she has done on other earths with less than stellar results. It soon becomes apparent that the main villain is The Scarlet Witch, aka Wanda Maximoff, who after the events of WANDAVISION, is now determined to be reunited with her sons, Billy and Tommy, by any means necessary, and that includes taking America’s power in order to find an alternate universe where her sons still exist. Doctor Strange and America are soon universe hopping in order to evade the incredibly powerful Scarlet Witch, but are also trying to get their hands on the Darkhold and the Book of Vishanti, two magical McGuffins necessary in order to defeat the Witch. This battle takes the usual many twists and turns before a resolution is reached, and no one is unscathed in the end. The script is tight, and manages to avoid getting bogged down in exposition, while getting us invested in the characters, something ETERNALS didn’t quite pull off.
MULTIVERSE OF MADNESS marks the return of director Sam Raimi to the superhero genre after giving us not only the Tobey Maguire SPIDER-MAN films, but also DARKMAN back in the day. This is Raimi’s first film set completely in the MCU, and I must say that he and the corner of the Marvel universe occupied by Stephen Strange are a very good fit. Raimi unpacks a lot of his EVIL DEAD series tropes and puts them to good use here, especially in the gloriously and wickedly evil looking demons our heroes confront, not to mention a reanimated corpse that is major part of the final confrontation, to tomes like the Darkhold, a book written by evil Elder Gods that exact a price upon all who read from it and use its power. Two other things struck me about Raimi’s film: it is gorgeous looking, with a great use of primary colors in many scenes, and that it is quite violent. The former is on display when Doctor Strange and America travel to a different earth where flowers grow on the sides of buildings and the light is bright, quite the contrast to the equally impressive night world view of THE BATMAN. The latter is seen when a monstrous sized demon’s eyeball is ripped from its head, and an alternate superhero is literally cut in half.
What excites most of us Marvel fans is how MULTIVERSE OF MADNESS opens the door, and allows the Fantastic Four, the Inhumans, and the X-Men to at least plant their foot in the MCU. They may be alternate earth versions of Reed Richards, Black Bolt, and Professor X, but they are now technically in the same world that encompasses Spider-Man. And it is a treat to see John Krasinski, Anson Mount, and Patrick Stewart bring these iconic characters to this world at this time. The scene where The Scarlet Witch confronts The Illuminati is one of the true benchmarks of the MCU and raises intriguing questions for the future. It’s a scene that will spark much debate among Marvel fans over the fates of some heroes, and just who should have been able to outthink or outfight The Scarlet Witch. The other strength of this film is the casting, starting with Benedict Cumberbatch as Stephen Strange, a role he now inhabits as comfortably as Sean Connery did with 007; what is best about Cumberbatch’s portrayal is while Strange is a hero who will do what is right, he is also cocky, arrogant, and quick to take risks that have unforeseen consequences. All of this makes him so much better as a character than a paragon of virtue like Brie Larson’s Captain Marvel. Having Elisabeth Olsen’s Wanda be an antagonist who is a fallen hero rather than just an ugly Big Bad is another of the film’s strengths. Chiwetel Ejiofor is back as a different version of Mordo, who is menacing for different reasons. And Wong, played by Benedict Wong is high on my list of favorite MCU characters. I can’t be the only one who feels that way. Xochitl Gomez makes a good impression as America Chavez, and Rachel McAdams is back as differing versions of Christine Palmer, the love of Stephen Strange’s life. Good to see Lashana Lynch back as an alternate version of Maria Rambeau, and if this is a Sam Raimi movie, then there’s a funny cameo by Bruce Campbell. And Danny Elfman does his usual magic with the score.
The biggest criticism of MULTIVERSE OF MADNESS is that one has have watched a lot of the MCU, not to mention read more than a few comics, to know what is going on, and who is who, and what is there relationship to everyone else. If you don’t know where Wundergore is and why it is significant, then you’re probably going to be lost; this film is definitely not an entry point for the MCU. The movie gives a few clues as to where Phase 4 of the MCU might be headed, especially in a mid credits scene (welcome aboard Charlize Theron) that sets up a third Doctor Strange solo film. My hope would be that the arrival of America Chavez might lead us to a Young Avengers spin-off, something I’ve been hoping to see for years.
I am an indie author and my latest novel is ALL THE WAY WITH JFK: AN ALTERNATE HISTORY OF 1964. It is available at the following:
http://amzn.to/2jVkW9m on Amazon
http://bit.ly/2kAoiAH at Smashwords
Visit my Goodreads author's page at:
http://bit.ly/2nxmg
March 10, 2022
All good things must come to an end, even the vampire apocalypse.
All good things must come to an end, even vampire apocalypses. And in the final book of his horror trilogy, titled THE CITY OF MIRRORS, Justin Cronin wraps up the epic story he began with THE PASSAGE, and then continued with in THE TWELVE. Clocking in at just under 600 pages, this volume is just as stuffed with character and action, time jumps and narrative skips, as the other two books. As I stated in my review of THE TWELVE, I am a big fan of end of the civilization stories, and scifi/horror/fantasy epics that come in big thick narratives, and take the reader on a long and convoluted journey, ending in what is hopefully, a satisfying payoff for all that time commitment. Cronin writes excellent prose, has a good eye for detail, and knows how to build tension, deliver a scare, and write an explosive action scene. The man is a consummate storyteller. As in the other books, THE CITY OF MIRRORS doesn’t follow a linier narrative. It picks up with some characters right after the climatic events of THE TWELVE, which was set a century after the viral plague that destroyed civilization, then does a long flashback to before the plague to tell the story of Zero, the first infected from whom all the death and destruction flowed forth. The book begins and ends with sections set a thousand years in future, where we learn the final fate of a pertinent character. The last section is told in the present tense, which might be jarring to some, but I think that is because a character is talking directly to the reader, though it is never so stated. The main part of THE CITY OF MIRRORS tells what happens after the destruction of The Twelve has freed humanity from the Virals, infected humans who were transformed into relentless blood drinking killing machines. Years pass and the surviving humans in North America get on with their lives. These survivors let their guard down, begin building communities again out in the open, and embrace what they think is a hopeful future. But Zero is biding his time in the ruins of New York City, playing the long game, and determined to wipe the remaining humans from the face of the earth. When he springs his final trap, it is a free for all for survival, with the only hope being the last working ship afloat in the harbor in Houston. Texas. But Amy, a young girl, who like Zero, was also deliberately infected with the virus, and who has not become a monster like the others, heads for NYC with a few other humans for a final showdown. Characters we come to be invested in, like Peter Jaxon, Michael Fisher, Lucius Greer, Sara and Hollis Wilson, Anthony Carter, Alicia Donadio, Caleb Jaxon and Pim, his wife, along with many others, meet their fates; some of which are not happy ones, but most of which feel earned.
Cronin switches narrative gears more than once in this story, never more so than when he tells the story of Zero, who starts out as a young man named Tim Fanning from Ohio, who goes to college in New York, leads a self centered life, but does fall deeply in love with a woman married to his best friend. It’s a love story which does not end well, and the scars and bad judgments in its wake lead to disaster. As some have noted, this section reads almost like a John Updike story, but what Cronin is doing is humanizing his Big Bad, telling us that civilization was destroyed and the human species driven to near extinction because of one man’s fallible nature. It is what Cronin does with most of his characters, even ones like Amy and Alicia, who might have come off as tropes, instead portraying them as deeply human. I think it is what puts his novels far above the usual horror fare. Cronin does a very good job of telling an epic story by always focusing on his group of characters, while the devastation of the wider world is glimpsed enough so that we know what happens elsewhere. The escape from Texas is as terrifying and suspenseful as anything found in a great horror novel, and it is only topped by the final apocalypse in New York when Zero is at last confronted.
In the end, I must say that THE CITY OF MIRRORS is a horror story that stays with you. The compassion Cronin has for his creations, even the Virals, monsters with their human souls trapped within, raises his work to another level. In this third book, he sticks the landing, and brings it all home with a satisfying conclusion that will have more than one reader wiping away a tear at the end of the final page.
My book, BIG CRIMSON 1: THERE'S A NEW VAMPIRE IN TOWN, can be found on Amazon at: https://amzn.to/3GsBh2E
and on Smashwords at: https://bit.ly/3kIfrAb
My alternate history novel ALL THE WAY WITH JFK: AN ALTERNATE HISTORY OF 1964 can be found on Amazon at: http://amzn.to/2jVkW9m
and on Smashwords at: http://bit.ly/2kAoiAH
Visit my Goodreads author's page at:
http://bit.ly/2nxmg
Visit my Amazon author's page at: https://amzn.to/3nK6Yxv
March 9, 2022
Victory in Vietnam in an alternate timeline.
My book, BEATING PLOWSHARES INTO SWORDS is an alternate history of the Vietnam War. It is basically a What If story centered on what would have happened if the Tet Offensive had occurred in early 1965, resulting in Lyndon Johnson having to fight the war with a wholly different strategy. And replacing Bob McNamara with Richard Nixon of all people. My POV character is General Earl Halton, a member of Nixon's staff at the Pentagon.Below is an excerpt from my novel, BEATING PLOWSHARES INTO SWORDS, found on both Amazon and Smashwords:
I accompanied Secretary Nixon to Saigon in mid-December for a progress report. There has been some controversy about the meetings there between the Secretary and Gen. Westmoreland. It has been purported that the Secretary of Defense compelled the General into committing himself to end the war by a fixed date and promising him a blank check on whatever additional men and material that would be needed to achieve it. I personally sat in on every meeting that occurred and can attest that no such discussion happened. If such a conversation occurred privately, then the Secretary never mentioned it to me or acknowledged it officially. The 75,000 men that arrived in January 1966 was part of the original troop commitment. As I had originally believed, our superior numbers, coupled with the lessons of real combat, began to pay off in the early months of the new year when the enemy began to yield ground in the Central Highlands, where most of the major towns and strategic real estate were recaptured.
By early March the North Vietnamese seemed to be in full retreat to their sanctuaries in Laos and Cambodia; in many provinces they had just melted away. At the Pentagon, the assessment was that the war was virtually won; Secretary Nixon believed it was no longer possible for the Communists to win militarily and it was time to declare victory. President Johnson was prepared to present his terms to the North Vietnamese for ending the conflict.
It turned out that old Ho and Gen. Giap were far from beaten, they’d only strategically retreated and regrouped...
My book, BIG CRIMSON 1: THERE'S A NEW VAMPIRE IN TOWN, can be found on Amazon at: https://amzn.to/3GsBh2E
and on Smashwords at: https://bit.ly/3kIfrAb
My alternate history novel ALL THE WAY WITH JFK: AN ALTERNATE HISTORY OF 1964 can be found on Amazon at: http://amzn.to/2jVkW9m
and on Smashwords at: http://bit.ly/2kAoiAH
Visit my Goodreads author's page at:
http://bit.ly/2nxmg
Visit my Amazon author's page at: https://amzn.to/3nK6Yxv
March 7, 2022
This ain't no Super Friend! A Batman for our times.
Well, the Snyderverse never really took off, and that’s a shame, so it is back to square one, and that means we get a whole new incarnation of DC’s most fascinating top tier super hero, Batman. This new version is directed by Matt Reeves, who directed CLOVERFIELD, a film of which I am a big fan, and is simply titled THE BATMAN. This time the Caped Crusader is going solo as there is not a mention of Superman, Wonder Woman, The JLA, or any other hero of the DC universe. Reeves’ film is a stripped down, grim and gritty saga set in Gotham City very early in the career of millionaire Bruce Wayne turned vigilante. It’s dark, literally, as most scenes take place at night, and black it the primary color. The skies always appear to be cloudy, the better for the bat signal to appear, and rain is falling half the time. This is another film that can be considered a literal descendant from Martin Scorsese’s TAXI DRIVER, not to mention Ridley Scott’s BLADE RUNNER. I thought other primary influences are David Fincher’s SEVEN, and James Wan’s SAW. There’s also a noticeable lack of humor in the script, which portrays Gotham as an urban hellhole, where street thugs prey almost at will upon citizens while organized crime gets rich off dealing drugs with the help of a police force mostly on the take. Some will find all this darkness, literal and otherwise, to be pretentious, but I think it succeeds by building a world where a masked vigilante is the only salvation.
Where I also think THE BATMAN succeeds amazingly well is when it leans into the Caped Crusader as “the world’s greatest detective.” The basic plot of the film concerns the pursuit of The Riddler—the film’s chief Big Bad—a serial killer targeting the mayor, the chief of police, the district attorney, and other authority figures in Gotham while leaving riddles at each crime scene for Batmen. These riddles are clues to not only the motive behind The Riddler’s reign of terror, but to the larger corruption in Gotham, a big picture that comes to include the Wayne family. Along the way, Batman encounters Selena Kyle, a hostess at an underworld controlled night club who moonlights as the burglar known at Catwoman; club operator Oswald Cobblepot, the gimp also known as The Penguin; Carmine Falcone, the crime boss everyone works for in Gotham. Helping Batman is detective Jim Gordon, his only ally on a wary and suspicious police force; this is first Batman film to show a fractious relationship between Gotham’s champion vigilante and law enforcement, and it adds to the film enormously. Lurking behind them all is a masked murderer who shows no mercy. There are a couple of well staged set piece action scenes. The best is a terrifically staged car chase between the Batmobile and a fleeing Penguin through oncoming traffic, and an encounter in a pitch dark hallway between Batman and some mobsters where the only illumination comes from the flash of automatic weapons firing.
How is Robert Pattinson in the title role? He’s moody and broody enough to make a good and imposing Batman, which is necessary to make the film work, but his Bruce Wayne (who doesn’t get much screen time) needs way more fleshing out. Pattinson never smiles, which suits the film’s mood, but he does have real chemistry with Zoe Kravitz’s Catwoman, whose strong presence is a good balance with the Caped Crusader. Paul Dano’s Riddler doesn’t show his face until late in the film, but he makes a quite convincing psycho. Jeffrey Wright is a commanding Jim Gordon, while John Turturro is appropriately slimy as Falcone. My favorite is an unrecognizable Colin Farrell as The Penguin, a member of the rogue’s gallery we haven’t seen onscreen since Danny DeVito’s grotesque in Tim Burton’s BATMAN RETURNS, and of the two, I much prefer Farrell’s snarling bottom feeding criminal. Andy Serkis is quite capable as Alfred. And that is the Carver twins as the muscles who man the door at Cobblepot’s club. In a good film, the musical score is a character in its own right, and that can truly be said about Michael Giacchino’s work on THE BATMAN, especially in the way he works in Nirvana’s “Something in the Way.”
At three hours, THE BATMAN is a sit. I think a good twenty minutes could easily have been cut from it. As in all comic book films, there is some exposition heavy dialogue that can be clunky. And I can easily see where this film is not every Batman fan’s cup of tea; it has way much more in common with Todd Phillips’ THE JOKER than anything made by Burton or Joel Schumacher, not to mention the comic books written by Bob Kane and Bill Finger. Batman has been around a long time now, and when it comes to adaptations, I think we’ve gotten the hero to fit the times, starting with Adam West on the old ‘60s TV show, a series steeped in Boomer irreverence, to the Super Friends of long ago Saturday mornings, to the films of Burton, Schumacher, Christopher Nolan, and Zach Snyder, which in some way reflected the pop culture and the social tensions of past decades. Now Matt Reeves gives us a Batman for the 2020s. I like the way he leans into the theme of a city where the citizens have been betrayed and exploited by the elites and those in authority, and now the monsters they’ve created are coming for them. I’ll concede that it’s not an original approach, but it is a strong one with many storytelling possibilities.
And where does this incarnation of Batman go next? Well, I was most intrigued by a brief appearance by Barry Keoghan, credited only as “unseen Arkham prisoner,” who tells The Riddler that people love a comeback story, and who has a very distinctive laugh.
I am an indie author and my latest novel is ALL THE WAY WITH JFK: AN ALTERNATE HISTORY OF 1964. It is available at the following:
http://amzn.to/2jVkW9m on Amazon
http://bit.ly/2kAoiAH at Smashwords
Visit my Goodreads author's page at:
http://bit.ly/2nxmg
Where I also think THE BATMAN succeeds amazingly well is when it leans into the Caped Crusader as “the world’s greatest detective.” The basic plot of the film concerns the pursuit of The Riddler—the film’s chief Big Bad—a serial killer targeting the mayor, the chief of police, the district attorney, and other authority figures in Gotham while leaving riddles at each crime scene for Batmen. These riddles are clues to not only the motive behind The Riddler’s reign of terror, but to the larger corruption in Gotham, a big picture that comes to include the Wayne family. Along the way, Batman encounters Selena Kyle, a hostess at an underworld controlled night club who moonlights as the burglar known at Catwoman; club operator Oswald Cobblepot, the gimp also known as The Penguin; Carmine Falcone, the crime boss everyone works for in Gotham. Helping Batman is detective Jim Gordon, his only ally on a wary and suspicious police force; this is first Batman film to show a fractious relationship between Gotham’s champion vigilante and law enforcement, and it adds to the film enormously. Lurking behind them all is a masked murderer who shows no mercy. There are a couple of well staged set piece action scenes. The best is a terrifically staged car chase between the Batmobile and a fleeing Penguin through oncoming traffic, and an encounter in a pitch dark hallway between Batman and some mobsters where the only illumination comes from the flash of automatic weapons firing.
How is Robert Pattinson in the title role? He’s moody and broody enough to make a good and imposing Batman, which is necessary to make the film work, but his Bruce Wayne (who doesn’t get much screen time) needs way more fleshing out. Pattinson never smiles, which suits the film’s mood, but he does have real chemistry with Zoe Kravitz’s Catwoman, whose strong presence is a good balance with the Caped Crusader. Paul Dano’s Riddler doesn’t show his face until late in the film, but he makes a quite convincing psycho. Jeffrey Wright is a commanding Jim Gordon, while John Turturro is appropriately slimy as Falcone. My favorite is an unrecognizable Colin Farrell as The Penguin, a member of the rogue’s gallery we haven’t seen onscreen since Danny DeVito’s grotesque in Tim Burton’s BATMAN RETURNS, and of the two, I much prefer Farrell’s snarling bottom feeding criminal. Andy Serkis is quite capable as Alfred. And that is the Carver twins as the muscles who man the door at Cobblepot’s club. In a good film, the musical score is a character in its own right, and that can truly be said about Michael Giacchino’s work on THE BATMAN, especially in the way he works in Nirvana’s “Something in the Way.”
At three hours, THE BATMAN is a sit. I think a good twenty minutes could easily have been cut from it. As in all comic book films, there is some exposition heavy dialogue that can be clunky. And I can easily see where this film is not every Batman fan’s cup of tea; it has way much more in common with Todd Phillips’ THE JOKER than anything made by Burton or Joel Schumacher, not to mention the comic books written by Bob Kane and Bill Finger. Batman has been around a long time now, and when it comes to adaptations, I think we’ve gotten the hero to fit the times, starting with Adam West on the old ‘60s TV show, a series steeped in Boomer irreverence, to the Super Friends of long ago Saturday mornings, to the films of Burton, Schumacher, Christopher Nolan, and Zach Snyder, which in some way reflected the pop culture and the social tensions of past decades. Now Matt Reeves gives us a Batman for the 2020s. I like the way he leans into the theme of a city where the citizens have been betrayed and exploited by the elites and those in authority, and now the monsters they’ve created are coming for them. I’ll concede that it’s not an original approach, but it is a strong one with many storytelling possibilities.
And where does this incarnation of Batman go next? Well, I was most intrigued by a brief appearance by Barry Keoghan, credited only as “unseen Arkham prisoner,” who tells The Riddler that people love a comeback story, and who has a very distinctive laugh.
I am an indie author and my latest novel is ALL THE WAY WITH JFK: AN ALTERNATE HISTORY OF 1964. It is available at the following:
http://amzn.to/2jVkW9m on Amazon
http://bit.ly/2kAoiAH at Smashwords
Visit my Goodreads author's page at:
http://bit.ly/2nxmg
