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.

A quick pan of “Minority Report’s” pilot episode (2015)

The first episode of television’s “Minority Report” (2015) has all the bells and whistles of its 2002 cinematic source material, but little of its skilled storytelling.  I’d rate it a 6 out of 10, and that probably reflects my positive bias connected with my love for the classic film.

The show looks great — the special effects are well thought out, well rendered, and in abundance.  Visually and in terms of its fictional technology, this is terrific way to revisit the future that was painstakingly envisioned for the fantastic movie.  The show is an earnest follow-up, too; you can tell that the writers respect the film and were reaching for its unique vibe and its fast-paced suspense.

Regrettably, the pilot here just doesn’t suggest that this will be an unusually good show.  The writing and directing are average, at best, and some of the acting is downright poor.  A hastily conceived plot features one of the movie’s plot-driving psychic “precogs” rushing to intervene in future murders, which he can still predict, like some kind of lone, nonviolent, pre-emptive vigilante.  A cheesy covert partnership develops between him and a tough-and-sassy-but-sexy, single, female cop.  And blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.  Cue the bad dialogue.  I honestly think my friends and I could have come up with something better than that.

Oh well.  It can’t all be “A” material.  At least, that’s what I’ve been telling people who bitch about my jokes on Facebook.  And this was just the pilot — maybe the show will get better.

MinorityReportFOX-ad

RUSSIA.

You know a country is badass when its poets look like goddam gunfighters.

Below is Vladimir Mayakovsky at age 20.

My first thought when I turned this up (strangely enough, on an unrelated Google search) was “Roland of Gilead.” Mayakovsky actually was an actor.  If he were alive today, maybe he could be cast in the upcoming “Dark Tower” movie adaptation.

578f49c50046c7247586ea066e4be2a1 (1)

A quick review of the Season 6 premiere of “The Walking Dead.” And is a major death hinted at?

I tend to obsess a little about spoilers, so I’m reluctant even to describe the plot of the Season 6 opener for “The Walking Dead.”  The story I thought we’d see absolutely wasn’t the story we saw, and the very first scene should be a terrific surprise for the viewer.  Suffice to say, this episode was fantastic — I’d give it a 9 out of 10.

After five seasons, even a diehard fan of the program can ask about its screenwriters, “How long can they keep this up?”  This is a horror subgenre that’s hard to keep fresh.  But the show still succeeds.

The writers are trying, and it shows.  I suggest that this actually is sometimes a pretty smart show.  A nice amount of thought has gone into the major action set-pieces since the start of Season 5 — everything from strategy, tactics, terrain, diversion, leadership, and even differing levels of training for new or seasoned combatants.  When one protagonist refers to our heroes’ adversaries as “an army,” I began looking at this episode as … “military horror?”  Is that even a thing?  Anyway, it’s a refreshing change for fans of zombie horror who are tired of the spate of second-rate movies on Netflix — those typically show attractive twenty-somethings in vague battles, cheerfully rattling off dry one-liners while swinging impact weapons, despite their lack of any training or experience.  This episode offered horror fans both exploding zombie heads and an intelligently staged battle to follow.  Nice stuff!

Also present were the other things that people love about the show — great character moments, surprise character development, and terrific dialogue.  The exchange between Morgan and Carol was goddam beautiful, and it makes me rethink my longstanding (and unpopular) criticism that this show sometimes struggles with characterization.

The suspense and tension tonight were absolutely perfect.  I was on the edge of my seat until the end of story.  And the final surprise development and cliffhanger there really drove me nuts, even if I have a pretty good idea why it occurred.

There is one question here that I am embarrassed to ask.  I’m afraid I’m going senile.  Am I the only fan who absolutely does NOT remember the character of Ron?!  I … I thought that Alexandria’s Hester Prynne here had only ONE son, young Sam!

Hey, one more thing — if I’m onto something here, I’m going to be damn proud … and I don’t think this counts as a spoiler, as it is only an unconfirmed suspicion on my part.  We see an erratic Abraham manically and cavalierly battle some zombies here.  When asked why he was behaving strangely, he replies that he’s “taking the bull by the balls.”

He sounded a hell of a lot to me like the erratic Roger manically and cavalierly battling zombies during a fateful scene in George A. Romero’s “Dawn of the Dead” (1978).  He keeps blurting, “We got this by the balls, we got this by the balls!”  And both scenes involve people getting in and out of vehicles.  The 1978 sequence ends poorly for Roger because of his carelessness.  Does this mean that Abraham is likewise doomed?

cf43d0c11dcbb85457b9fe4f7282c11c

An incredible video of wolves along a snowy road.

This is the kind of footage that makes me want to get out and see the world — even if it is only “the world” between the Pacific and the Atlantic.

In case you’re wondering, this was indeed shot from the safety of a vehicle.  (You kind of can’t tell, as I can’t see a windshield.)  The source is the Facebook page for Kevin Bastarache Wildlife & Nature Photography.

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