Interesting premise; mediocre execution. -- 3 Stars.
I am not generally a fan of Stephen King, but from time to time a concept of his intrigues me enough to give him a try. Sometimes I am pleasantly surprised (liked “Cell”), and other times I am let down (hated “Dreamcatcher”).
However, I have been fascinated for some time with his whole Richard Bachman persona. For years, I have been meaning to pick up a copy of “Thinner,” and just never got around to it. My son’s best friend suggested that I try “The Regulators,” one of the most recent Bachman books. I agreed to give it a try. Having finished it, my verdict is mixed.
“The Regulators” is an intriguing idea that never feels like it lives to its full potential. A small, Midwestern town becomes isolated by an alien or demonic force known as Tak. Within this sphere of reality, the characters find themselves facing an evil that has been overwhelmingly influenced by the imagination of young autistic child.
Anything can happen, and does for the first half of the story. But it began to feel as though Bachman (King) was just making this up as he went along and then ran out of steam. It felt as though the story had some larger, more breath taking climax out there, somewhere, and the author just could not find it. Just as the characters cannot leave their lone street, the story becomes trapped as well.
Still, to give credit where credit is due, I have to admit that the writing was very compelling when the plot was working, without as much of the over laden details that I dislike about Stephen King. The deaths of various characters are visceral and disturbing, the latter of which shows that I was invested in the story more than it felt at other times. For that reason alone, I give the book an extra half star from 2-1/2 to 3 stars.
My son’s friend reports that this book has a “companion” novel, which King wrote under his own name, called “Desperation.” I have never read that book, but I caught the first half of a two evening TV mini series a few years ago. The fact that I did not feel compelled to tune in the for the second half suggests that I wouldn’t care for that book either.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
“The Night Stalker” by Jeff Rice
Nice approach to a modern vampire story. -- 4 Stars
I saw “The Night Stalker” TV movie when it first aired back in 1972. It was very striking for its time, so when I found a copy of the book on Ebay, I bid on it immediately.
Like the novel “Bloodlist,” “The Night Stalker” brings a noir feel to the vampire genre (though “The Night Stalker” takes place in its then modern time of 1970, while “Bloodlist” is set in the 30's). Even though it was written nearly 40 years ago, as evidenced by the antiquated newspaper techniques and technology, its commentary on politics and all of the dirty games and cover ups involved is still very relevant today. Too relevant, sadly.
The main thing I liked about the book, however, was its realistic approach to vampires. Assuming that vampires were real ... how would they have functioned in 1970's society? How would they hunt, how would they keep themselves safely fed, how would they deal with modern press exposure and police capabilities, and even the difficulties of moving country to country? This novel addresses all of those questions, and it does so very well.
My least favorite element of the book, the part that keeps me from giving it 5 stars, was a distracting number of typos! Some of which actually changed the context of the sentences, so that I had to read some passages more than once to figure out what it meant. Sometimes even character names changed in spelling. I don’t know if they had looser editing standards when this was written/published, but it was very annoying.
But all in all, I enjoyed the book very much. The climax was a little different from what I remember of the TV movie, but if anything, the book’s version was once again more realistic. So my prior knowledge turned out not to be a spoiler, but an opportunity for me to react, “Yes ... that makes more sense.”
So long as you are forewarned about the typos, I would recommend “The Night Strangler” to any fan of now classic horror novels.
I saw “The Night Stalker” TV movie when it first aired back in 1972. It was very striking for its time, so when I found a copy of the book on Ebay, I bid on it immediately.
Like the novel “Bloodlist,” “The Night Stalker” brings a noir feel to the vampire genre (though “The Night Stalker” takes place in its then modern time of 1970, while “Bloodlist” is set in the 30's). Even though it was written nearly 40 years ago, as evidenced by the antiquated newspaper techniques and technology, its commentary on politics and all of the dirty games and cover ups involved is still very relevant today. Too relevant, sadly.
The main thing I liked about the book, however, was its realistic approach to vampires. Assuming that vampires were real ... how would they have functioned in 1970's society? How would they hunt, how would they keep themselves safely fed, how would they deal with modern press exposure and police capabilities, and even the difficulties of moving country to country? This novel addresses all of those questions, and it does so very well.
My least favorite element of the book, the part that keeps me from giving it 5 stars, was a distracting number of typos! Some of which actually changed the context of the sentences, so that I had to read some passages more than once to figure out what it meant. Sometimes even character names changed in spelling. I don’t know if they had looser editing standards when this was written/published, but it was very annoying.
But all in all, I enjoyed the book very much. The climax was a little different from what I remember of the TV movie, but if anything, the book’s version was once again more realistic. So my prior knowledge turned out not to be a spoiler, but an opportunity for me to react, “Yes ... that makes more sense.”
So long as you are forewarned about the typos, I would recommend “The Night Strangler” to any fan of now classic horror novels.
Monday, March 16, 2009
"Of Wolf and Man" by Christopher Andrews
Outstanding sequel! -- 5 Stars
I discovered Christopher Andrews when I read his first Triumvirate novel, “Pandora’s Game,” a very original cautionary tale about playing games with the unknown. This book introduced us to vampire Alastaire and his werewolf partner Sean, and ended with the story wide open for a sequel. I am pleased to see that Andrews took the plunge!
(I should admit here that I have not read the short story, “Connexion,” that came between these two novels. I am not a fan of short stories in general, so although I’ve been tempted to pick up Andrews’ collection “Darkness Within,” I have not gotten around to doing so. I think I was able to figure out the missing bits all right to read “Of Wolf and Man,” but I will almost definitely go back and check out the story now.)
“Of Wolf and Man” is everything that a sequel should be. Andrews revisits the familiar characters, but the plot is completely different from the first book, unlike so many other sequels (especially in movies) which are nothing more than rehashes of the predecessor. Sean the werewolf gets the spot light this time around, and the story involves dangerous werewolves loose in Alaska. The action gets rolling in the prologue and keeps momentum until the epilogue!
One of my only complaints about “Pandora’s Game” was that some of the other world chapters felt stretched out, to keep a back and forth pattern going through the whole book. That problem has been corrected in “Of Wolf and Man,” as the flashbacks don’t begin until specifically prompted by the plot. After that, Andrews uses them with his familiar style.
Trey the zombie, who was absent through large portions of “Pandora’s Game,” is given more attention here. I have never been a fan of traditional zombies, but Andrews puts an interesting spin on Trey, giving him a muted, handicapped personality rather than stripping him of all intelligence.
Another character I liked was the white wolf. While the alpha is technically the main villain, Andrews uses the white wolf with greater depth. He’s sort of like Darth Vadar to the Emperor in the “Star Wars” movies. The white wolf was successfully interesting and creepy in all the right places.
Andrews DOES address one particular plot thread that carries over directly from “Pandora’s Game” -- Sean’s cryptic relationship with his sister. As such, Andrews addresses some bold issues, and does so very well.
Like the first Triumvirate novel, “Of Wolf and Man” ends with a sequel clearly in mind. I, for one, await it with baited breath! The adjustment to the flashback chapters is just what I needed to bump this book from “Pandora’s Game’s” 4-1/2 stars up to 5 stars! In the meantime, I think I’ll finally get off my lazy butt and pick up a copy of “Darkness Within.”
I discovered Christopher Andrews when I read his first Triumvirate novel, “Pandora’s Game,” a very original cautionary tale about playing games with the unknown. This book introduced us to vampire Alastaire and his werewolf partner Sean, and ended with the story wide open for a sequel. I am pleased to see that Andrews took the plunge!
(I should admit here that I have not read the short story, “Connexion,” that came between these two novels. I am not a fan of short stories in general, so although I’ve been tempted to pick up Andrews’ collection “Darkness Within,” I have not gotten around to doing so. I think I was able to figure out the missing bits all right to read “Of Wolf and Man,” but I will almost definitely go back and check out the story now.)
“Of Wolf and Man” is everything that a sequel should be. Andrews revisits the familiar characters, but the plot is completely different from the first book, unlike so many other sequels (especially in movies) which are nothing more than rehashes of the predecessor. Sean the werewolf gets the spot light this time around, and the story involves dangerous werewolves loose in Alaska. The action gets rolling in the prologue and keeps momentum until the epilogue!
One of my only complaints about “Pandora’s Game” was that some of the other world chapters felt stretched out, to keep a back and forth pattern going through the whole book. That problem has been corrected in “Of Wolf and Man,” as the flashbacks don’t begin until specifically prompted by the plot. After that, Andrews uses them with his familiar style.
Trey the zombie, who was absent through large portions of “Pandora’s Game,” is given more attention here. I have never been a fan of traditional zombies, but Andrews puts an interesting spin on Trey, giving him a muted, handicapped personality rather than stripping him of all intelligence.
Another character I liked was the white wolf. While the alpha is technically the main villain, Andrews uses the white wolf with greater depth. He’s sort of like Darth Vadar to the Emperor in the “Star Wars” movies. The white wolf was successfully interesting and creepy in all the right places.
Andrews DOES address one particular plot thread that carries over directly from “Pandora’s Game” -- Sean’s cryptic relationship with his sister. As such, Andrews addresses some bold issues, and does so very well.
Like the first Triumvirate novel, “Of Wolf and Man” ends with a sequel clearly in mind. I, for one, await it with baited breath! The adjustment to the flashback chapters is just what I needed to bump this book from “Pandora’s Game’s” 4-1/2 stars up to 5 stars! In the meantime, I think I’ll finally get off my lazy butt and pick up a copy of “Darkness Within.”
Sunday, March 15, 2009
"Shadowfires" by Dean Koontz
Stumbles at first, then recovers. -- 4 Stars (Originally written February 23, 2009)
Having once again fallen away from reading for pleasure, I made a New Year's resolution to get back in the habit. So the first thing I did was pick up some books by my two favorite authors: Christopher Andrews and Dean R. Koontz.
"Shadowfires" is actually an older Koontz book, originally published under a pen name. And as I read it, it showed, in both good ways and bad. It was definitely a Koontz book, but it was rougher and more raw than his later works.
"Shadowfires" starts with a bang, shooting us into the action in less than 10 pages. Unfortunately, after such a promising start, the story then stalls out for a while. As a rule, I have no problem letting a mystery unfold, but this is one of those cases where one of the main characters (Rachael) has FAR more information than the other characters, OR the reader. So for about 100 pages, we are treated to frustrating, tight lipped silence from Rachael as she rushes from situation to situation, with her love interest, Benny, in tow. And when she finally spills her guts, the revelation is easily predicted.
Eventually, the plot regains its feet, and from there Koontz is back in his element. The story is equal parts horror, thriller, conspiracy, science fiction, and cautionary tale. We're treated to Koontz's same old characters, the man and woman with terrible histories who find life and love together, but I've come to accept that. The villain's motivations are deep, disturbing, and sadly realistic in their way. What starts as a simple and not very exciting premise grows into something much more.
One of Koontz's rougher, less polished elements here is a tendency toward repetitious descriptions. Something will be described from one character's point of view, and then a few pages later, it is described again (in much the same way) from another point of view, and THEN it happens again a few pages after that. I'm fine seeing the same elements from different points of view (Christopher Andrews does this, and very well), but having the texture of a monster's skin described as being scaly over and over and over got monotonous.
But still, Koontz pulls it all together for a very satisfying ending. For the first 100 pages or so, I had feared I might have to give Koontz no more than 3 stars (or worse), but by the end, he proved himself once again, leaving me feeling that this was a 4 star effort after all.
Having once again fallen away from reading for pleasure, I made a New Year's resolution to get back in the habit. So the first thing I did was pick up some books by my two favorite authors: Christopher Andrews and Dean R. Koontz.
"Shadowfires" is actually an older Koontz book, originally published under a pen name. And as I read it, it showed, in both good ways and bad. It was definitely a Koontz book, but it was rougher and more raw than his later works.
"Shadowfires" starts with a bang, shooting us into the action in less than 10 pages. Unfortunately, after such a promising start, the story then stalls out for a while. As a rule, I have no problem letting a mystery unfold, but this is one of those cases where one of the main characters (Rachael) has FAR more information than the other characters, OR the reader. So for about 100 pages, we are treated to frustrating, tight lipped silence from Rachael as she rushes from situation to situation, with her love interest, Benny, in tow. And when she finally spills her guts, the revelation is easily predicted.
Eventually, the plot regains its feet, and from there Koontz is back in his element. The story is equal parts horror, thriller, conspiracy, science fiction, and cautionary tale. We're treated to Koontz's same old characters, the man and woman with terrible histories who find life and love together, but I've come to accept that. The villain's motivations are deep, disturbing, and sadly realistic in their way. What starts as a simple and not very exciting premise grows into something much more.
One of Koontz's rougher, less polished elements here is a tendency toward repetitious descriptions. Something will be described from one character's point of view, and then a few pages later, it is described again (in much the same way) from another point of view, and THEN it happens again a few pages after that. I'm fine seeing the same elements from different points of view (Christopher Andrews does this, and very well), but having the texture of a monster's skin described as being scaly over and over and over got monotonous.
But still, Koontz pulls it all together for a very satisfying ending. For the first 100 pages or so, I had feared I might have to give Koontz no more than 3 stars (or worse), but by the end, he proved himself once again, leaving me feeling that this was a 4 star effort after all.
"Dream Parlor" DVD
Very good movie, but the book was better. -- 4 Stars (Originally written June 19, 2006)
If you've been following my reviews, you know that I am a fan of Christopher Andrews the author. I read his book adaptation of "Dream Parlor" about 6 months ago, and I loved it. I waited to see if the movie would become available for rent from Blockbuster, but I decided not to wait any longer and bought a copy. For the most part, I am pleased with my decision.
First, the movie is low budget, but I do not write this to be negative. Viewers should just be aware that this is an independent film, and should not expect the flash or special effects of current Hollywood fare. The film makers did a lot with what they had to work with, and the director has a good eye. There's some decent CGI work, but don't expect "The Matrix" here.
Second, the performances were better than one might expect from a low budget movie. I've already been impressed with Andrews as a writer, and now I see that he's a pretty good actor, too. So are Harold Cannon (who I think I've seen before) and Kevin Moore, and an enjoyable Kevin Crowther. Alison Storry was less impressive, but she was far from terrible. All together, a solid cast.
Finally, the movie has a slow but steady pace, which picks up noticeably in the final act. The total running time felt a little short, but I'll get to that in a moment. Social and religious commentary is evident, but it does not bog the movie down. The story is straight forward and relevant, and refreshingly high brow. There were some strobe effects that got a little hard on the eyes during the film's climax, but they don't last long enough to be a real problem. And as I mentioned in my review of the book, the main characters of Eli and Corbit are multi layered and very human.
My only real complaint is that some of the supporting characters ended up being a little flat and two dimensional. And having read the book, which was BASED on this movie, I was a little surprised by this. It had been several months since I read the book, but I kept feeling that something was missing here and there. So I looked through the DVD's special features, and sure enough, THERE were the deleted scenes that I was half remembering.
As I mentioned above, the movie is a little short, running just barely more than 90 minutes. So I can't help but wonder WHY some of those scenes were cut. A visit to the movie's website explains some of these decisions, but still ... with so much time to spare under the 2 hour mark, it seems that SOME of these scenes could have remained intact and fleshed out those characters. Especially Kirk, who could have been more than just a cookie cutter tough guy.
But again, I make these biased comments as a fan of Andrews' books in general, and "Dream Parlor" in particular. It is possible that, had I not KNOWN that something was missing here and there, I MIGHT not have noticed as much.
Still, overall I enjoyed this independent film, and consider it a worthy companion to its somewhat better novelization. Rent it if you can find it, buy it if you can't!
If you've been following my reviews, you know that I am a fan of Christopher Andrews the author. I read his book adaptation of "Dream Parlor" about 6 months ago, and I loved it. I waited to see if the movie would become available for rent from Blockbuster, but I decided not to wait any longer and bought a copy. For the most part, I am pleased with my decision.
First, the movie is low budget, but I do not write this to be negative. Viewers should just be aware that this is an independent film, and should not expect the flash or special effects of current Hollywood fare. The film makers did a lot with what they had to work with, and the director has a good eye. There's some decent CGI work, but don't expect "The Matrix" here.
Second, the performances were better than one might expect from a low budget movie. I've already been impressed with Andrews as a writer, and now I see that he's a pretty good actor, too. So are Harold Cannon (who I think I've seen before) and Kevin Moore, and an enjoyable Kevin Crowther. Alison Storry was less impressive, but she was far from terrible. All together, a solid cast.
Finally, the movie has a slow but steady pace, which picks up noticeably in the final act. The total running time felt a little short, but I'll get to that in a moment. Social and religious commentary is evident, but it does not bog the movie down. The story is straight forward and relevant, and refreshingly high brow. There were some strobe effects that got a little hard on the eyes during the film's climax, but they don't last long enough to be a real problem. And as I mentioned in my review of the book, the main characters of Eli and Corbit are multi layered and very human.
My only real complaint is that some of the supporting characters ended up being a little flat and two dimensional. And having read the book, which was BASED on this movie, I was a little surprised by this. It had been several months since I read the book, but I kept feeling that something was missing here and there. So I looked through the DVD's special features, and sure enough, THERE were the deleted scenes that I was half remembering.
As I mentioned above, the movie is a little short, running just barely more than 90 minutes. So I can't help but wonder WHY some of those scenes were cut. A visit to the movie's website explains some of these decisions, but still ... with so much time to spare under the 2 hour mark, it seems that SOME of these scenes could have remained intact and fleshed out those characters. Especially Kirk, who could have been more than just a cookie cutter tough guy.
But again, I make these biased comments as a fan of Andrews' books in general, and "Dream Parlor" in particular. It is possible that, had I not KNOWN that something was missing here and there, I MIGHT not have noticed as much.
Still, overall I enjoyed this independent film, and consider it a worthy companion to its somewhat better novelization. Rent it if you can find it, buy it if you can't!
"The Taking" by Dean Koontz
Well written, but constantly changing. -- 3 Stars (Originally written June 6, 2006)
I am a big Dean Koontz fan, and I WANTED to like this book. The concept intrigued me. I was told by a friend that it was too much like Stephen King's "The Mist," but since I am not the world's biggest King fan, I had not read "The Mist," and thought that maybe I would enjoy "The Taking" more because of that lack of comparison.
First, I have no complaint against Koontz's writing style. He is usually a very good story teller, and that remains true here.
Second, we are treated to Koontz's usual, standard Male and Female characters here. As always, they are well written, though not quite as three dimensional here as in some of his other books. I have accepted that he is essentially writing the same characters over and over in different story situations. If I am going to keep reading Koontz, I HAVE to accept that. So again, no complaint.
The problem I had with the book was that its THEME seemed to keep shifting. During the very effective and creepy beginning, it seems very much like the movie "Signs". Then, as Koontz moves into the middle of the book, it shifts into more of a "Twilight Zone" feel (or, granted, King's "The Mist," as it has been described to me). And as it moves towards the rather flat finale, it ends up being very BIBLICAL of all things. Or at least "religious," as it puts an all new spin a specific bible story.
If Koontz had just chosen and stuck with any ONE of these themes, I would probably have enjoyed it even more. Each portion was interesting, but squeezed together like this, they just didn't seem to FIT very well.
My second favorite author, Christopher Andrews, has been threatening Koontz's hold on the number one spot ever since I read his book "Paranormals" (which I highly recommend if you enjoyed the "X-Men" movie that just came out). With "The Taking" being the next Koontz book I've read since then, they are coming that much closer to changing positions for me. No disrespect, Mr. Andrews, but I hope that the next Koontz book I read is more up to his usual standards.
I am a big Dean Koontz fan, and I WANTED to like this book. The concept intrigued me. I was told by a friend that it was too much like Stephen King's "The Mist," but since I am not the world's biggest King fan, I had not read "The Mist," and thought that maybe I would enjoy "The Taking" more because of that lack of comparison.
First, I have no complaint against Koontz's writing style. He is usually a very good story teller, and that remains true here.
Second, we are treated to Koontz's usual, standard Male and Female characters here. As always, they are well written, though not quite as three dimensional here as in some of his other books. I have accepted that he is essentially writing the same characters over and over in different story situations. If I am going to keep reading Koontz, I HAVE to accept that. So again, no complaint.
The problem I had with the book was that its THEME seemed to keep shifting. During the very effective and creepy beginning, it seems very much like the movie "Signs". Then, as Koontz moves into the middle of the book, it shifts into more of a "Twilight Zone" feel (or, granted, King's "The Mist," as it has been described to me). And as it moves towards the rather flat finale, it ends up being very BIBLICAL of all things. Or at least "religious," as it puts an all new spin a specific bible story.
If Koontz had just chosen and stuck with any ONE of these themes, I would probably have enjoyed it even more. Each portion was interesting, but squeezed together like this, they just didn't seem to FIT very well.
My second favorite author, Christopher Andrews, has been threatening Koontz's hold on the number one spot ever since I read his book "Paranormals" (which I highly recommend if you enjoyed the "X-Men" movie that just came out). With "The Taking" being the next Koontz book I've read since then, they are coming that much closer to changing positions for me. No disrespect, Mr. Andrews, but I hope that the next Koontz book I read is more up to his usual standards.
"High Tension" DVD
[I do not normally do movie reviews, but as a fan of Dean R. Koontz, I felt compelled to write this one. I later reviewed the movie version of Christopher Andrews' "Dream Parlor" as well.]
How did they get away with this? -- 3 Stars (Originally written April 17, 2006)
I do not normally review movies. Books are usually my thing. And I know that this has been discussed in other reviews. But after seeing "High Tension," I just HAVE to agree and throw in my two cents.
The only reason this film is getting 3 stars from me is because the acting was pretty good, and the film makers certainly knew how to build visual tension. I hereby acknowledge their skill in those departments.
Now, having said that ... this movie is such a BLATANT rip off of Dean R. Koontz's novel, "Intensity," it is not even funny. Other people have commented that Koontz should sue for plagiarism, but I am sincerely baffled that he has not already done so!
The first three fourths (maybe a little more) of the movie are point for point, step by step directly the same as Koontz's novel. Oh, the fine details were different, but no more so than ANY novel adapted into a movie. If you were to write a simple synopsis of the plot of the majority of this movie, you could easily pass it off as a book report on "Intensity."
The movie follows the book (with ironic loyalty) until the final act, or what would have been roughly half way through the novel. Then, the movie takes a left turn that is INTENDED to mimic the twists of such films as "The Sixth Sense" or "The Usual Suspects" or "Fight Club." Sadly, it was nowhere near as successfully executed as any of those films. They were so desperate to create a twist that no one could out guess that it simply made no logical sense at all.
The truly sad thing is ... Hollywood now cannot make an adaptation of the great novel "Intensity." Because those viewers not in the know would (oh IRONY!) think that such a film was a "rip off" of "High Tension."
Sad ... very sad.
How did they get away with this? -- 3 Stars (Originally written April 17, 2006)
I do not normally review movies. Books are usually my thing. And I know that this has been discussed in other reviews. But after seeing "High Tension," I just HAVE to agree and throw in my two cents.
The only reason this film is getting 3 stars from me is because the acting was pretty good, and the film makers certainly knew how to build visual tension. I hereby acknowledge their skill in those departments.
Now, having said that ... this movie is such a BLATANT rip off of Dean R. Koontz's novel, "Intensity," it is not even funny. Other people have commented that Koontz should sue for plagiarism, but I am sincerely baffled that he has not already done so!
The first three fourths (maybe a little more) of the movie are point for point, step by step directly the same as Koontz's novel. Oh, the fine details were different, but no more so than ANY novel adapted into a movie. If you were to write a simple synopsis of the plot of the majority of this movie, you could easily pass it off as a book report on "Intensity."
The movie follows the book (with ironic loyalty) until the final act, or what would have been roughly half way through the novel. Then, the movie takes a left turn that is INTENDED to mimic the twists of such films as "The Sixth Sense" or "The Usual Suspects" or "Fight Club." Sadly, it was nowhere near as successfully executed as any of those films. They were so desperate to create a twist that no one could out guess that it simply made no logical sense at all.
The truly sad thing is ... Hollywood now cannot make an adaptation of the great novel "Intensity." Because those viewers not in the know would (oh IRONY!) think that such a film was a "rip off" of "High Tension."
Sad ... very sad.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)