Powerful Pages: The Andromeda Evolution by Daniel H. Wilson (from 2019)

Powerful Pages: The Andromeda Evolution by Daniel H. Wilson (from 2019)

This kinda felt like the Jaws 2 of novels.  Jaws is a true masterpiece, and I would apply this label to both the book directed by Peter Benchley and the film adaptation directed by Spielberg.  Meanwhile, Jaws 2 is an okay sequel.  A serviceable effort rendered by a competent artist.  Again, I would apply this label to both the book by Hank Searls and the film adaptation from Jeannot Szwarc.  The Andromeda Strain was a landmark novel of science fiction written by one of the finest authors of his or any other generation.  The Andromeda Evolution is enjoyable enough, and Daniel H. Wilson's attempt to mimic Crichton's mesmerizing and information-rich prose is occasionally superlative and never anything less than tolerable.  While it suffers by comparison to its predecessor, The Andromeda Evolution is a worthwhile read that maintained my interest.  There were some striking ideas in play, and the execution was undoubtedly professional if not inspired.  The third act is a bit too much, in my humble opinion; certain developments strained the fabric of credibility so essential to Crichton's premise to the breaking point and beyond.  I did find myself liking the characters, and I thank Wilson for the opportunity to revisit this property.  Fans of The Andromeda Strain will want to experience this sequel, and I suppose I would encourage them to do so--at their leisure.

Final Grade: B-

Short Attention Span Review - A Return to Salem's Lot (1987)

Short Attention Span Review - A Return to Salem's Lot (1987)

I'm an avid fan of Stephen King, and Salem's Lot is my favorite novel by him.  I'm also a big fan of Tobe Hooper's TV adaptation of the book, which is faithful in many ways, and also quite dissimilar from the source material in many ways.  With that in mind, I think I'm supposed to hate this movie.  I know a great many do.  And to be clear, it doesn't even pretend to exist in the same universe, which may be offensive to a lot of fans.  Aside from the name of the town, a New England setting, and the presence of vampires, it bears no resemblance to King's vision or Hooper's adaptation.  It's kind of like a reboot before reboots were a thing, albeit a reboot disguised as a sequel.  Many see this as an unforgivable sin, but it doesn't bother me as much.  It's also one of director Larry Cohen's lesser efforts, which is often considered a mark against it.  Okay, I agree, it's far from his best work--but a subpar Larry Cohen movie is still above average.  That's my take, anyhow.  And he brought Michael Moriarty along for the ride, and Moriarty does his usual bang-up job for the director who understood how to utilize him best.  Surprisingly, however, Moriarty is overshadowed by Samuel Fuller in this one--I know that's a bold statement, but it's true.  In fairness, Moriarty is a bit more of a standard lead here, while Fuller has a far more interesting character and the script blesses him with the picture's best lines.  I also enjoyed Andrew Duggan as the big bad, and I don't mind the hokey effects as much as many do.  I'm not going to make a case for A Return to Salem's Lot as a really good movie, but I'm not lumping it in amongst all those good bad movies I love so much either.  It's an okay fright flick, nothing special, but entertaining enough.  It moves at a brisk pace, and it offers up some intriguing ideas along the way.  There's a decent amount of blood and gore, and the characters are easy enough to root for.  This is a movie that many despise because of what it isn't, but it never pretends to be any of those things.  It's just a wonky little vampire movie from a gifted director who borrowed a setting from a literary giant, but approached the project with no great aspirations and a meager budget.  Nothing more, nothing less.

Final Grade: C+

I wouldn't have thought it possible for anyone to upstage Michael Moriarty in a Larry Cohen picture, but Samuel Fuller did just that.

Short Attention Span Review - A Nightmare on Elm Street 4: The Dream Master (1988)

Short Attention Span Review - A Nightmare on Elm Street 4: The Dream Master (1988)

Oye.  This movie had so much potential, but it just couldn't connect the dots.  While director Renny Harlin did manage to drop some cool imagery on us, and there were some rather solid action bits, a lack of character development and a jokey script undermined his efforts.  Robert Englund was surely invested in the material, and seemed to be having a ball with his part, but it was just a little too much.  I enjoyed some of Freddy's wisecracks, but I didn't really want to see him portrayed as a murderous clown.  And that was apparently the goal in The Dream Master, which also suffered from a number of cringeworthy gags that missed the mark entirely.  There were some zingers that landed, and some of the creativity that made Dream Warriors a winner made it onto the screen.  However, while it was servicable for this type of flick, the effects work wasn't quite as good as what we saw in the prior entry.  The script dispensed with several pivotal characters with minimal fanfare, and failed to develop their succesors enough to inspire me to root for them.  Aside from the roach kill and a rousing finale, I nearly lost interest.  To be fair, the roach kill was totally f'n gnarly, but by the time I got to that part. it was a genuine "too little, too late" scenario.  Then we got the parting shot, an obligatory "Freddy's still out there" gimmick--and it was really, really weak.  In fact, that would be an adequate summary of this late 80s slasher sequel: really, really weak.  If not for that one wild moment when The Dream Master totally bugged out, I would give this one an "F."

Final Grade: D-

Robert Englund has a great time with The Dream Master.  I did not.

Short Attention: Deadpool 2 (2018)

Short Attention Span Review: Deadpool 2 (2018)

If you liked Deadpool, then you won't have any complaints about Deadpool 2.  Ryan Reynolds was born to play this part, and the fact that the powers that be have allowed him to do it his way is both a sweet blessing for comic book fanboys and the secret to this franchise's success.  In some ways, Deadpool 2 is better than its predecessor, particularly when it comes to big laughs and brawls.  It also has a more interesting narrative, but it may suffer from a lack of focus, as it does seem to meander at times.  It is also surprisingly sappy at times, and while it's hard to criticize a film for trying to inject more feeling into the proceedings, it certainly seemed a little odd to have Deadpool trying to pluck at my heartstrings.  However, it does boast Josh Brolin as Cable, and that may be the real secret to this sequel's appeal.  Reynolds is perfect as Deadpool, no doubt about it, and I enjoy his schtick, but it can be a bit grating.  Brolin's more grounded approach (which still relies on a heavy dose of humor) is a fine way to balance things out and provide a worthy counterpart to Deadpool's inane shenanigans.  Deadpool 2 is a little less vulgar than its predecessor, which I found surprising as sequels so often push the envelope in every way possible.  However, it definitely ups the ante on the comedic front in a big way, and that was my favorite thing about it.  Whereas Deadpool benefitted from a steady stream of chuckles, Deadpool 2 manages to do likewise while also sporting two bits that are as funny as anything you're apt to see.  I'm talking sequences so hilarious that I couldn't catch my breath I was laughing so hard.  I'm talking about a pair of comic setpieces that can rival the funniest parts of any movie ever lensed.  Yeah, that funny.  X-Force!  So, in summary, Deadpool 2 is more of a mixed bag than the first one was, and it has a few chinks in its armor, but when it wins, brothers and sisters, it wins big.  

Oh, and Reynolds continues to poke fun at his other comic book movie exploits to great effect, but his love/hate relationship with Hugh Jackman's Wolverine remains his greatest fallback.  That stuff is golden.

Final Grade: B+

No surprise here: Brolin is a welcome addition to this franchise.  At this point, he has emerged as a true powerhouse who would be a welcome addition to most any franchise.

Short Attention Span Review: Halloween II (2009 - Rob Zombie version)

Short Attention Span Review: Halloween II (2009 - Rob Zombie version)

DISCLAIMER:  There are two things that I should point out before we go any further.  First, I am a big fan of Rob Zombie's movies, and I understand that these are polarizing ventures.  His style isn't for everyone, but I dig it in a big way.  Hell, John Carpenter is my favorite director, and I've gone out on a limb before* and stated that I found Zombie's Halloween to be superior to the original because I loved both the additional depth and the ramped-up carnage.  Secondly, my praise here will refer ONLY to the director's cut** of Halloween II.  I saw the theatrical cut upon release and deemed it an abject failure.  After a friend nagged me for years, I finally gave the director's cut a chance and found it to be one hell of a horror film.

This is a case where you go in expecting one thing and get something else.  The opening reel makes it seem like Rob Zombie's second dance with The Shape is going to be a blistering rehash of the original sequel--and it is FREAKING AMAZING!!!  And then things take a hard left.  One of the hardest lefts you're ever going to experience while watching a beloved horror franchise, in fact.  And that may be too much for some to overcome, and it may have played a role in my disdain of the original release (though, upon comparison, there can be no doubt that it is grossly inferior to Zombie's preferred version) back in 2009.  However, those who hang on for the ride will get their money's worth--and then some.  While there are numerous departures from the source material at every turn and Zombie cross-pollinates a bloodthirsty slasher flick with the vision quest from hell, the end result is a dark and demented display of cold-blooded terror.  Eerie, vicious, and even heartbreaking at times, Halloween II covers a lot of bizarre ground.  Yet Zombie never loses his focus, and no matter how twisted things get, the center holds.  There is little relief available to viewers in this unsettling journey into madness and despair, and at times Halloween II is so bleak that it becomes extremely hard to endure.  Many feel that The Devil's Rejects is a tough watch, and I would agree, but Halloween II kinda makes that depraved grindhouse epic feel like a Spielberg movie.  Many of the beats take the story to places I didn't want it to go, but the results are impossible to ignore, and the impact of Rob's dedication to painting such a horrid picture is devastating.  There are moments of such unmistakable pain in this one that it emerges as one of the most haunting horror films I have seen, and that's just not what one typically expects from this sub-genre.  Rob Zombie's Halloween II is bold and unconventional when we want it to be familiar, and then it gets meditative and disturbingly introspective when we want it to be titillating.  I have little doubt that Zombie didn't expect fans to embrace this material with open arms, and the decision to forge ahead and challenge audiences with something so profound and terrifying is the very definition of audacious.  I salute him, and while I wouldn't make my dog watch the theatrical cut, I heartily recommend the director's cut to my fellow fright fans.  Just go in with an open mind and get ready to feel the fear.

Final Grade:  B+

Halloween II is everything you expect from a Rob Zombie film: brutal, grimy, frenzied, and profane.  It is also both the strangest thing he has ever put on film and one of the most surreal horror films you're apt to see from an American director.

*see my story When Michael met Rob - A Killer Love Story in RVA Magazine

**strange but true: I recommend the theatrical cut of Zombie's first Halloween and the director's cut of his sequel.  I don't hate the director's cut of the first one as much as I despise the theatrical cut of the second one, but it is a big step down.

Short Attention Span Review: Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2 (1986)

Short Attention Span Review: Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre is a minor classic that benefits largely from the raw look and feel of the piece, giving it an authenticity that makes it seem like the closest thing to a snuff film you're apt to find on Netflix.  As such, it isn't a picture I like to revisit, and most of the entries in this ongoing series are equally grim affairs that fall well short of the high water mark Tobe Hooper set with the original in 1974.  Hooper himself only revisited the material as a director with this 1986 sequel.  While many were completely turned off by its goofy tone and flamboyant characters at the time it was released, it has earned quite a reputation as a cult classic and remains a personal favorite of mine.  Unlike most sequels, the body count doesn't grow exponentially, and in fact The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2 probably sports one of the lowest body counts that you're apt to find in a gory slasher flick.  Even if there aren't bodies piling up on the screen, there is an abundance of blood and guts on display, and Tom Savini's practical effects are amazing.  The surreal set design is just as impressive, and the characters are mostly caricatures.  The acting fits the bizarro tone nicely, with Bill Moseley and Dennis Hopper competing to see who can give the most ridiculous performance in the picture.  Moseley is equal parts hilarious and disgusting as the villainous Chop-Top, while Hopper plays Lieutenant Lefty Enright, a Texas Ranger who is both a righteous avenger and a bloodthirsty lunatic who may just be crazier than Leatherface.  In many ways, these sensational elements join together to make The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2 a cartoonish chiller, and while it's easy enough to see how that could rub many people the wrong way, I love it.  In closing, I should also note that the score is fabulous, the ending is killer, and all the dark humor in play makes this a bizarre treat that is worth revisiting often.     

Final Grade: A

The MVP of this gonzo sequel has to be Bill Moseley, whose Chop-Top is a grotesque nutjob who is just  as amusing as he is disgusting.

Finders Keepers by Stephen King (2015)

The latest from Stephen King is the second entry in a new trilogy.  It boasts the unlikely trio of heroes who saved the day in the slick and entertaining thriller Mr. Mercedes, though they don't show up here until the second act is well underway.  This novel is really more about a teenage boy who bites off more than he can chew and a sadistic lunatic whose love for prose is only rivaled by his penchant for dishing out brutality with a total lack of remorse.  Oh, he also has a knack for blaming his mother and an old friend for every sick mistake that he makes in a life that is filled with such mistakes.  This book is tied to its predecessor in more ways than one and a creepy subplot serves as an intriguing bridge to the next chapter in this blood-curdling saga.  I liked Finders Keepers a lot; it's a genuine page-turner and the good guys from Mr. Mercedes are some of the most interesting heroes that King has provided us with in a while.  Yet I wasn't as keen on young Peter Saubers, the gutsy hero of Finders Keepers, though the villainous Morris Bellamy was equal parts compelling and utterly repulsive.  Peter was a bright lad who was capable of fine moments that clearly displayed the presence of grit and intelligence, but there were a few too many times when he made incredibly stupid decisions for my liking.  Sometimes panic or stress were to blame, but some of these miscues seemed necessary to advance the plot.  Of course, Peter was young and maybe I expected too much from him.  Additionally, I should note that even the best fiction is often reliant upon plot devices to a certain extent.  Regardless, Finders Keepers is a gripping read with a wealth of tension, some truly abhorrent moments, and several well-defined characters at its disposal.  It's not top-shelf Stephen King, but a good book from this titan trumps a great book from most authors.

Final Grade: B

Short Attention Span Review: Psycho III (1986)

Stop me if you've heard this one before: Alfred Hitchock's Psycho is a masterpiece.  As is the case with many classics, it spawned sequels, most of which were relatively tame.  However, the third picture in the series, directed by star Anthony Perkins, is a worthy follow-up.  Now, it's nowhere near as good as the original, but that should come as no surprise.  Still, it's an intriguing opportunity to revisit one of the horror genre's most iconic figures and the plot provides us with a few twists and turns during our third stay at the Bates Motel.  Perkins had the art of playing Norman Bates down to a science and he also showed himself to be a fine director with this tense and disturbing thriller.  Diana Scarwid is also impressive as a conflicted nun on the run who flees the convent and takes refuge at the Bates Motel.  Bad call, right?  Most importantly, Jeff Fahey is on hand as Duane, a seedy drifter who takes a job at the motel and proves to be almost as kooky and dangerous as Norman.  Those who know me well know that I'm a big fan of Fahey and this performance is one of the reasons why.  He adds so much to the movie and his character is a tremendous foil for Perkins.  Their volatile relationship generates a wealth of tension in the third act of the picture.  There are a few scenes in the mix that would have made Hitchcock proud, to include a choice bit where the sheriff casually scoops cubes out of an ice machine where a corpse is stashed while Norman watches, sweating bullets.  There are a handful of gruesome demises and a lot suspense, but this isn't the type of picture that depends on cheap scares or gore.  It's quirky but serious, twisted but deliberate, and it showcases a unique talent in a part he was born to play.  Perkins also shows that he could direct everyone's favorite momma's boy as well and his Psycho III is a strange little thriller that delivers the goods.

Final Grade: B-

Jeff Fahey damn near steals the show as Duane, the master of lamp foreplay.

Jaws 2

Watched Jaws 2 with the fam Saturday night.  That's how we Waylands roll.  I know Kristen wasn't all that enthused initially, but even she wound up enjoying the picture.  I have always liked it a lot.  I mean, it's not Jaws, but that shouldn't be a surprise.  However, it's common knowledge that Jaws inspired a slew of imitations over the years, and I still feel that Jaws 2 is the best killer shark movie that isn't Jaws.

Roy and several others return and Amity feels right.  The effects are nifty, there are some exciting sequences, and I like the bit the kids and their boats.  In a way, this picture kind of hits me like a marriage between Jaws and a vintage Friday the 13th, say one of the early 80s editions.  It does feel like the shark is stalking Brody and the people of Amity, and there are several scenes in Jaws 2 that would fit perfectly in a slasher flick. 

I've always liked the ending, and though it is woefully inferior to Jaws, my favorite movie of all time, I am rather fond of the forgotten stepchild that is Jaws 2.  If you're looking for a good time with teeth, you could surely do worse.

Live Free or Die Hard

I hadn't watched Live Free or Die Hard until last night (despite the fact that Timothy Olyphant plays the heavy) because I had heard so many bad things about it.  It didn't help that the previews were ridiculous.  So, what's the verdict?  Well, let's be real: some of the action scenes are beyond absurd.  Seriously, this one may boast some of the silliest action scenes you will ever see.  Yet they worked, at least from a technical standpoint, and the whole thing was a lot of fun.  Timothy was cool, Justin Long was great, and Bruce Willis was Bruce Willis.

I'm not saying it was a great movie, but it was a good movie, and I had fun with it.

Why I Don't Like Discussing Current Projects

So, I want to try and explain something today.  There are a few questions that writers are accustomed to, and one of the most common questions is a polite inquiry about whatever it is that we're working on at present.  Now, I always appreciate anyone taking interest in my work, but this is a question I always try to avoid, and I'm sure my answers are seldom rewarding.  My hope is that in explaining my thought process here, those of you who may have been miffed (or may one day be miffed) by my generic responses to this all-too-common query will understand.

First off, I have no problems discussing anything that has been completed.  Typically, I'm more than willing to spill the beans once my first draft is finished, so you don't even have to wait for revisions and rewrites and such.  Yet I'm reluctant to discuss anything I'm currently working on, or any brilliant ideas I have yet to launch.  Many assume I'm not willing to talk about these projects because I'm afraid my ideas will be stolen, and I can see why they might perceive that as an insult.  Relax, I trust you, and I'm not worried that you're going to take my next big idea and run with it.  There are no new stories to tell anyway, it's all about the storytelling in this day and age, and I happen to like my flavor.

No, the truth is that I believe that any storyteller, whether they're a writer, a filmmaker, or even a musician, has a certain amount of juice to devote to their craft.  I guess I think we're sort of like batteries.  I also think that far too many storytellers use up too much juice talking about projects they should be working on and never produce the artwork they should.  Think about it: how many people do you know who have told you about a book they were going to write over and over again without writing a single sentence?  How many aspiring filmmakers constantly explain their big idea to people without ever buckling down and working to make it a reality?  How many musicians are constantly talking about the type of band they would like to be in and the material they would like to produce without bringing any other musicians into the fold or playing any chords?

I think a lot of aspiring storytellers fall into the trap of talking about what they intend to do, and either they use up all the enthusiasm and energy they have for the material in question describing it, or perhaps talking about it somehow becomes an acceptable substitute for production.

Now, maybe it's just me, maybe I'm the only artist wired like this, but that's why I'm so reluctant to open up and really lay out whatever I'm currently working on.  Hell, if you get a working title out of me, you should be impressed.  I like to devote myself to the work, and when I'm done I'm very eager to share the final product.  I just don't like talking about something I'm working on until I'm done.

So, I hope that helps.  For the record, I'm currently working on a sequel to Trailer Park Trash & Vampires.  The working title for that project is "Raining Blood" and I hope to use that title upon publication.  Since so many have asked, I have gone as far as to explain that the primary threat the survivors of TPT&V face in the sequel is NOT a vampire, but that's all you get.  I'm also working on an unnamed thriller that may or may not benefit from a small dose of the supernatural.  I'm not trying to be cryptic about the supernatural element either, I'm still undecided on that front.

Anyway, sharing is caring, and that's what I like to do here in the Land of Way.  I am looking to publish another novel this summer (it's called Dirty Southside Jam, it's finished, and you can ask me anything you like about it) and I'll keep you informed about that book and those that follow here.  I'll also continue to tell you all about the movies and shows I'm watching, the sports I treasure, the music I'm listening to, and the real good stuff, the various books and comics I'm scoping out.