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.

Halloween is coming!!!

The holiday arrives in a scant three weeks.  I’ll be populating the blogosphere here and there with a few monsters.  I hope you don’t mind.

From Wikimedia Commons:  [“Julie Adams, famously pursued in the 1954 horror classic, “Creature from the Black Lagoon,” portrayed an FDA chemist who helped break up a trucking industry amphetamine ring in “330 Independence S. W.,” a 1962 episode of NBC’s Dick Powell Show.”]

Famous_Actress_Who_Later_Portrayed_an_FDA_Chemist_(FDA_124)_(8205683361)

Photo credit: By The U.S. Food and Drug Administration [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons.

“DIY: How to Make and Bind Chapbooks,” by staff at Poets & Writers

I just shared this with a writer and musician friend up in New Jersey.

I had no idea that making a poetry chapbook was so easy — especially with the formatting options for Microsoft Word. Many of us are so excited (and maybe even overwhelmed) by the online and indie publishing arenas that we forget about a more traditional approach like this.

To me, it seems like a nice way to at least seek exposure.  I’ve kicked around the idea of doing a public reading once or twice; it’s actually easy to sign up at the Bowery Poetry Club in New York City.  (I regrettably never got around to it.)

But the “pocket-size” chapbook here looks so inexpensive to produce that it would make a nice handout for after a live reading, even if it includes only a handful of a writer’s best poems.  If you write on a continuous basis, something like that would also be an interesting variation of the “annual Christmas letter.”

The options here would also work for a limited collection of prose, I would think.  And depending on the quality of the printer, it would work for reproductions of artwork as well.

http://www.pw.org/content/diy_how_to_make_and_bind_chapbooks?cmnt_all=1

“Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice!”

“I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!”

—  Barry Goldwater, in his acceptance speech as the Republican presidential candidate, 1964

BarryGoldwater

Cover to “if Science Fiction,” November 1959, featuring “If You Wish,” by John Rackham (John T. Phillifent)

Thanks to blog correspondent Pete Harrison for sharing this in the Halloween spirit!

12028831_10153013068350388_1151419467661029755_o

A short review of “The Collection” (2012)

I have to give “The Collection” an 8 out of 10.

No, it’s not a classic horror movie — it’s derivative of the “Saw” movies, and it seems to result from too little thought by the screenwriters.  The antagonist is a serial killer (and here a mass murderer) who employs extraordinary Rube Goldberg-esque machines to brutally trap his victims.

We know nothing about how he arrived at his expertise.  (He appears to be a demon-possessed Thomas Edison.)  His choice of victims is random.  His modus operandi is puzzling.  (Why bring a prior victim to a new crime scene?)  And we’re not even shown how these machines work — only CG’ed tracking shots of cables and pulleys.  Neither do we know why he has unarmed combat training that seems to approach the level of Batman’s.  And the question I was left with by the previous film (“The Collector,” 2009) is still the most egregious omission — how on earth does our bad guy have time to invade a house or building and set all these things up?!  There is SOME nice exposition about the killer’s motivations in some closing dialogue, and it’s wickedly interesting, but it’s cut short.

But, hey — this still got under my skin enough to be an effective horror movie.  The opening action set-piece (YEESH!) was not only frightening, it was also something completely surprising.  I knew bad things were afoot when we spot our horrible machinist lurking above, but … I didn’t expect THAT.

Even with almost no speaking lines, Randall Archer deserves credit for terrific physical acting throughout — not to mention some the best (worst?) crazy-evil eyes in horror film history.  (Just LOOK at this mamajama in the second picture below.)  Archer is a professional stuntman, and his movement and posture sell the role perfectly.

Even better is the presence of Josh Stewart, who returns as the first movie’s nuanced antihero.  I’ll say it again — I love this guy.  He’s a damned talented actor, and he deserves more leading roles in major films.  He was even frikkin’ awesome in his small role as Bane’s craven little henchman in “The Dark Knight Rises” (2012).

And Lee Tergeson, who I remember best as Beecher in HBO’s “Oz” (1997-2003), is also great to watch.

There are other nice touches too.  Like its predecessor, this movie could be smart and creative when it tried.  The use of a gun here is pretty clever, even if it seems obvious in retrospect.  (I wouldn’t have thought of that.)  And the fate of some of our bad guy’s past victims is both fresh and very disturbing.  If those ideas had been expanded on much further, this film would have risen above its status as a “Saw” imitator.

Finally, I love endings like the one we see here.  I won’t say more for fear of spoilers.

collection_ver2

The-Collection-e1364275552414

An explanation of movie and television ratings here at the blog.

“You give a lot of ‘8’s.”  That’s what blog correspondent Len Ornstein told me recently about my movie and television reviews here, and my shorthand scale-of-one-to-ten rating system.  I realized that I actually do rate a hell of a lot of movies an “8 out of 10,” and I thought maybe I should clarify why there’s a preponderance of favorable reviews on my blog.

First, let me reiterate my longstanding disclaimer.  I cheerfully admit that I am only an amateur reviewer.  I have never taken a single film class and profess no genuine expertise in the medium’s appreciation.  I do, however, tend to share the same tastes and standards as others in my peer group.  These are netizens who aren’t connoisseurs, but who can still tell a good movie from a bad one, and who’d rather not spend time and money on the bad ones.

Second, my informal rating system is purely subjective.  It depends often on my mood, and is usually a gut reaction.

Now, about those favorable reviews — the explanation is simple.  If a movie is less than good, I usually stop watching.  For example, I sadly abandoned the pilot for the “Minority Report” series yesterday after 25 minutes or so.  (I might get back to it this weekend.)  The past year’s television adaptation of “12 Monkeys” likewise failed to hold my interest.  I also tend to drop streaming movies or television shows that are well made, but aren’t quite my taste — tv’s “Gotham” and “Orphan Black” are two examples.

So I’m really mostly writing only about things I’ve liked.  The negative reviews here tend to be for things that have held my interest only out of nostalgia or morbid curiosity.  The pilot for the 1970’s “Planet of the Apes,” I think, is the most recent example.

Is an “8 out of 10” a sort of default rating for me?  Probably.  That’s the “numerical value” I usually give to a “good” movie or tv show — something that I enjoyed watching and would recommend to others.

A “7 out of 10” rating also suggests that a movie or show was “good,” but bordering on average, and not one that I’d go out of my way to recommend.  (Try to remember what it felt like getting a 70 on a test at school; it wasn’t terrible, but it was nothing to brag about either.)  Examples here could include “Cockneys vs. Zombies,” “Alien: Resurrection,” or the later “Hellraiser” sequels.

A “9 out of 10” denotes something that was extremely good — maybe not perfect, but a fantastic watch.  Examples, I think, would include seasons of “The Walking Dead,” “Hannibal,” or “Lost,” as well as the better superhero and horror movies.  The first examples that pop into my head are the “Avengers” movies, the lesser Indiana Jones films, “28 Weeks Later,” George A. Romero’s “Dawn of the Dead,” “American History X,” “Zulu,” or “These Final Hours.”  These are movies or shows I’ll watch more than once, even if I don’t feel the need to endlessly revisit them.  Or they’re especially intelligent or thought provoking science fiction films that I’m really impressed with, even if one watch is enough — the recent “Ex Machina” would be a good example.

A rare “10” rating denotes a movie that I think is perfect, is nearly perfect, or is just so damn fun that I keep watching it again and again anyway.  These are the movies for which I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve seen them.  Examples would include “Raiders of the Lost Ark,” “Vanilla Sky,” “Black Hawk Down,” “Saving Private Ryan,” “Blade Runner,” “Aliens,” “Alien 3,” “12 Monkeys,” “Apocalypse Now,” “Donnie Darko,” Ridley Scott’s “Hannibal,” “We Were Soldiers,” “The Accidental Tourist,” the first two “Blade” movies, “2001: A Space Odyssey” or “28 Days Later.”  They’d include all four season’s of Ron Moore’s “Battlestar Galactica,” all three of Britain’s “Sherlock,” most seasons of “24,” and one or two seasons of “The X Files.”  They’d also include comedies like “Old School,” “Anchorman,” or “Bill and Ted’s Bogus Journey.”  A “10” is a movie that will typically inhabit the “Top Ten” lists that I swap with other flick-nerds on the Internet.

So there ya have it.  It’s nothing scientific; it’s just one nerd’s opinion.  My motto for all of this is “Caveat Reador.”

But if you occasionally find something you enjoy after I recommended it, that’d be just great. Thanks for reading and sharing!   🙂

Raiders5-e1375412098228

A short review of “The Gift” (2015)

I guess the formula for “The Gift” (2015) is pretty simple — hand a superb script to three superb actors.  Here, they are Jason Bateman, Rebecca Hall and Joel Edgerton, and the dark drama they bring to life is driven by dialogue and unexpected character development, instead of jump scares and dark hallways and other conventional thriller conventions.  (Edgerton, who I last saw as a boilerplate good guy in 2011’s “The Thing” prequel, is also the director here.)  The three actors are magic together.  I became uncomfortable (as was the filmmaker’s intention) even during the first apparently innocuous conversation when the three interact for the first time at a chance meeting in a department store.

In fact, I’m not sure that “The  Gift”  is even a thriller instead of a particularly disturbing drama.  Like other viewers, I’d suggest that what filmgoers see is not what the movie’s trailer suggests.  This is yet another film that reviewers can’t describe in detail for fear of spoilers.

I’d give this a 9 out of 10.  My only criticisms are very mild.  I think Bateman underplayed the distress his character ought to have felt in the last 10 minutes or so.  Also, I found myself wanting more closure and less ambiguity in the ending, as well more of a standard climax.   But that probably just reflects my expectations as a traditional horror-thriller fan, and not any real failings of the movie.

The-Gift-Movie-Poster-Simon

“Born Again” is beautiful!

I actually haven’t read Frank Miller’s classic “Born Again” storyline for Daredevil.  But I think I need to.

This was passed along to me by blog correspondent Pete Harrison.

David Mazzucchelli’s artwork is outstanding.

12046661_10153021690705388_9195644510591042330_n

Throwback Thursday: Longwood High School’s International Student Organization

Some of my fondest memories of Longwood High School are of the International Student Organization (ISO).  I met a hell of a lot of my best friends in life there (or joined the after-school club at about the same time that they did): Tim Gatto, Carrie Harbach, Shoaib Kamal, Sabir Naseer, Rich Schulz, Ahmad Butt, Julianne Whitehead, Keith Nagel and a whole gang of other great people.

It was a terrific idea for a club at Longwood.  Suburban New York wasn’t as diverse as New York City, but our school had a disproportionate number of international students.  This was partly because Longwood was less than a mile from Brookhaven National Laboratory, which drew employees from throughout the world.  (I was surprised during my freshman year at a Southern college when people asked about it — Brookhaven actually is well known elsewhere in the country.)

The ISO was a club for both international students and their American friends.  It was a hell of a fun time, and a recreational way to learn about other countries and their cultures.  We took a lot of field trips to Manhattan — more so than any other LHS club, I think.  (The credit for that goes to Gerda Barber, who was an outstanding faculty advisor.)  The atmosphere was fantastic, and, as I said above, I made lifelong friends there.

Carrie allowed me to swipe the below photos from her Facebook.  Thanks, Bud!  I THINK they are all of ISO activities.  (My memory is not so hot.)  That one shot of me in the 70’s-tastic red Adidas shirt has GOT to be one that was taken earlier than high school.  Because I look … nine.  (Either that or I was so sullen because everybody else had beaten me to puberty; I’m not sure.)  [EDIT: Carrie just told me that the red Adidas shirt pic was from JUNIOR high!!!]

51ZZNADNKKL._SX306_BO1,204,203,200_

29265_400143041428_5340143_n

29265_400143036428_7107915_n

29265_400142991428_3199742_n

29265_400142976428_5798939_n

29265_400143226428_462949_n

29265_400142901428_4267539_n

29265_400143221428_1349577_n

29265_400143031428_5577108_n

The “Sherlock” holiday special trailer is here!!

It’s brief, but it makes the program look damn good!!

Will this period story be an alternate interpretation of the character by Benedict Cumberbatch?  The little dialogue we hear from the detective sounds a bit more poetic and introspective than the snide analyst we’ve seen in the show’s modern incarnation.

“We all have a past, Watson.  Ghosts — they’re the shadows that define our every sunny day.”

Could this be a take on the character that’s closer to other film versions?