All posts by Eric Robert Nolan

Eric Robert Nolan graduated from Mary Washington College in 1994 with a Bachelor of Science in Psychology. He spent several years a news reporter and editorial writer for the Culpeper Star Exponent in Culpeper, Virginia. His work has also appeared on the front pages of numerous newspapers in Virginia, including The Free Lance – Star and The Daily Progress. Eric entered the field of philanthropy in 1996, as a grant writer for nonprofit healthcare organizations. Eric’s poetry has been featured by Dead Beats Literary Blog, Dagda Publishing, The International War Veterans’ Poetry Archive, and elsewhere. His poetry will also be published by Illumen Magazine in its Spring 2014 issue.

I wear my sunglasses at night.

I might have gotten ripped off.  These are … “ECLIPSE VIEWING GLASSES,” but it was only after I paid three dollars for them at 7-11 that I realized I have no detailed understanding of why I might need them, or how much (necessary?) protection they might offer.

The packaging instructs me to “WATCH THE SOLAR ECLIPSE.”  But … you could also call them “bird-watching glasses” and it wouldn’t technically be false advertising, right?

If anyone can advise me on how best to photograph the August 21st eclipse, I’d be grateful.  I have a digital camera and a cell phone.  I tried to photograph the last full moon (I wanted a pic to accompany my “Roanoke Summer Midnight” poem), but they absolutely did not turn out.  The only result was that now my neighbors think I’m nuts for taking pictures outside at 1 a.m.

[UPDATE 8/4/17: Okay, as it turns out, eclipse-viewing glasses are serious business.  If you don’t use properly manufactured glasses, you can seriously damage your retinas, or even blind yourself.  What’s more, I’ve read online that there are particularly horrible people who have been selling glasses that are not safe to use?  Let’s hope that’s just an unconfirmed rumor.

A pal of mine sent me this link.  (The glasses I bought below actually do meet the right regulatory standards.)

Reputable Vendors of Solar Filters & Viewers]

 

20170802_011442

 

 

“Young Woman Drawing,” Marie-Denise Villers, 1801

Oil on canvas.

Villers_Young_Woman_Drawing

“You call her Doctor JONES, Doll!”

God damn, Netflix’ “Jessica Jones” (2015) looks like a great show.  I finally got around to watching the complete pilot episode, due to my interest in the upcoming “The Defenders,” which features the character.  And “Jessica Jones” was frikkin’ terrific.  I’d rate the first episode a 9 out of 10.

At first, there were aspects of the pilot that annoyed me.  We’re told virtually nothing about the origin of the title character’s superpowers, and not much about the powers themselves.  They’re also a fairly generic power set, as far as I can tell.  She has enhanced strength and agility and … that’s it?  So she’s a low-grade Superman or Spider-Man, more or less?  We also learn somewhat little about what looks to be the series, antagonist, Kilgrave, played by David Tennant.  We see Kilgrave only briefly, in flashbacks that seem reminiscent of post-traumatic stress disorder.  (These are sometimes weirdly delivered, for a show that is otherwise well directed.)  He has mind-control abilities that resemble the “push” ability seen in Stephen King’s “Firestarter,” as well as my favorite short story of all time, “Everything’s Eventual.”

But … hell, this was just an extremely good show.  For starters, Krysten Ritter is perfect as the wisecracking anti-heroine.  She’s funny; she’s got great, dry line delivery; and she’s a decent actress.  (I know that the Marvel Cinematic Universe’s more powerful heroes rarely visit Hell’s Kitchen, but I’d love to see her trade quips one day with Tony Stark.  She couldn’t beat him, but she’d come closer than anyone else.)

The script is good enough to make her a likable character, and the story itself is scary and compelling.  Considering the plot-driving capability of the show’s villain this … looks like it could become a King-style horror thriller.  Between this show and “Daredevil’s” bloody second season (2016), I’m starting to understand that Hell’s Kitchen might be the MCU’s stage for more horror-type stories.  And I’m fine with that.

 

p12123988_b_v8_aa

The buzz around Roanoke.

This is a terrible picture, but … you see those tall, dark shapes ascending from the high, bare branches like grotesque, upright fruit?  Those would be buzzards.

Or … turkey vultures.  To be honest, I don’t know if there is any difference between turkey vultures and buzzards.  I’m from New York.

 

20170730_193039 (2)

Cover to “Weird Tales,” Virgil Finlay, May 1952

Weird_Tales_May_1952

Hare Club for Men?

I can’t imagine what sort of image I am projecting by endlessly posting pictures of bunnies on my blog.  Yet here we are again.

This little guy wanted badly to play tag today.  He kept hugging the path late today where I usually pass him, and once unexpectedly darted so close to my ankles that I almost fell over.

I doubt such playfulness is typically smiled upon by natural selection, but whatever.

 

20170730_194651

Cover of “Amazing Stories,” Ed Valigursky, December 1958

Ziff-Davis Publishing.

Amazing_science_fiction_stories_195812

A short review of “It Stains the Sands Red” (2017)

“It Stains the Sands Red” (2017) is a pretty decent zombie film; I’d rate it an 8 out of 10.

The fun starts with a truly impressive aerial shot of Las Vegas in the midst of a full blown zombie apocalypse — it’s great special effects work, and it’s almost enough to compensate entirely for the limited scope of the story that follows it.  (This film focuses largely on one stranded woman being pursued by one zombie antagonist through the Nevada desert.)

Although much of the film might be too slow for some horror fans, it’s actually surprisingly intelligent.  The movie focuses on things often neglected in survival horror scenarios like this one — factors like exhaustion, the elements, firearms proficiency, the availability of basic utilities and even the availability of addictive drugs.  There’s more to admire too — there’s a plot twist late in the game that I thought was skillfully executed.  (I won’t spoil it here.)  Finally, our ostensibly addle-brained anti-heroine does a couple of things that I never would have thought of in order to survive.

It also boasts an incongruously beautiful setting.  (This was shot in Nevada’s “Valley of Fire.”)

“It Stains the Sands Red” isn’t perfect.  There are a couple of stupid parts, particularly near the end of the story.  (Were these otherwise talented screenwriters just running out of steam?)  And there is one surprise plot development that will be sure to have some genre fans rolling their eyes and groaning.

Also, the makeup effects for the monster were good enough, but not stellar.  (Like many longtime fans of zombie horror, I think I’ve been spoiled by the genius of Greg Nicotero and Tom Savini.)

I ‘d still name this as a good movie, however, and I’d recommend it.

 

ISTSR_poster

Cover to “Marvel Comics Presents” #112, Steve Lightle, 1992

Wolverine and Typhoid Mary.

 

d4eda7fd7625d1de0c2695ede44a8fc1--marvel-series-comic-covers

 

A short review of “War for the Planet of the Apes” (2017)

Like the two films preceding it, “War for the Planet of the Apes” (2017) is an intelligent, well rounded science fiction thriller.  The newest “Apes” series has been leagues ahead of the campy late-1960’s original films, and of course Tim Burton’s bizarre 2001 remake.

There is more going on here than a simple “apes vs. humans” tale.  Nor does it engage in simplistic moralizing, in which the innocent animals must escape from their human oppressors.  There’s a hell of a lot of moral complexity — something noted by the many positive reviews for the film.  One of the things that I liked the most was a compelling new surprise plot element, even though it approaches deus ex machina territory.  I won’t spoil it here, but it’s bleak, it’s frightening, and it makes you think.  Given the new information one character explains to another … it’s hard to say who is the bad guy, isn’t it?  How this plot element plays out is damned effective too.

This movie also superbly renders non-human characters — both in terms of its smart script and its special effects (a combination of both CGI and human actors).  I was greatly impressed at the detailed and lifelike facial expressions.

The action sequences were well executed, too, and the film had an epic feel.  (Although this would be a decent conclusion to a trilogy, filmmakers Matt Reeves and Martin Bomback have gone on record stating they wouldn’t be averse to future sequels.)

Still, I must confess that my attention sometimes wandered.  I think the pacing was a bit off.  It also didn’t help much that the conclusion of the final action set piece was spoiled by one of the film’s trailers.  (What the hell were they thinking?  Who makes these decisions?  Was there any backlash from fans who didn’t want advance knowledge of the film’s ending?)

Although this was an exceptionally well developed film, I just can’t give an unusually high rating to a movie that didn’t always hold my interest.  I believe, therefore, that I’d rate this an 8 out of 10.

 

war-for-the-planet-of-the-apes-poster-380x600