Hey, there’s a really informative interview over at The Book Marketing Network — 4-LAN chats with indie author Ken Magee about how he received more than half a million hits for “Dark Tidings,” a novel he self-published on Wattpad.
Read it here:
All posts by Eric Robert Nolan
Meet C.J. Somersby and support “Conquest.”
Dagda Publishing’s newest release looks damned interesting — check out the crowdfunding campaign for C.J. Somersby’s “Conquest.”
https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/conquest-by-c-j-somersby-marketing-campaign–2#/story
It sounds like a hell of a fun fantasy novel. (Seriously, read the synopsis.) And grassroots marketing campaigns like this one are so important to independent authors.
I love Matt Davis’ cover design as well. It actually reminds me a lot of the work of one of my own favorite artists, Matt Wagner. (I actually thought it was a Wagner piece when I first saw the image via my Facebook’s newsfeed.)
Can anyone spare a Dolarhyde? Because I’m a little short.
First look at “Hannibal” Season 3!!!
I am depending on you people to watch this show, so that it remains on the air. You guys already failed to come through for me on “The Following,” and now Ryan Hardy will no longer be able to save us from serial killers — which, in “The Following’s” universe, are about as common in the population as Justin Bieber fans (and even more terrifying).
I am sorry to gush so much like a fanboy for “Hannibal,” but if everyone else is going so bananas for “Star Wars,” I figure my ardor here is forgivable. If it redeems me any, I was also a huge fan of the books. So … y’know … literature and stuff.
Here are a few quick thoughts:
1) The Season 3 preview looks great, but it IS rather heavy on spoilers regarding who survived the Baltimore massacre. (Am I mistaken in thinking the second season finale meant to keep that a mystery? ALL the advance press does this — including character posters.)
2) I’m happy to see that Hannibal Lecter is NOT actually married to Bedelia (I won’t attempt to spell the remainder of her name), because that would contradict his character incredibly.
3) It looks as though NBC shot on location in Europe. Isn’t that really expensive for a TV show to do?
4) I’m confused about whether the story takes place in Paris or Florence (as in Thomas Harris’ original novel).
5) Seeing Will Graham speak in a British accent causes me cognitive dissonance. I get the same thing whenever I see Andrew Lincoln or Hugh Laurie in interviews. Because Rick Grimes should not sound like James Bond.
6) It looks as though they are heavily (and wisely) referencing the novels again. The line, “I’ve killed hardly anybody during our residence,” paraphrases Harris’ “Hannibal.”
7) No Clarice Starling … and maybe not ever. NBC does not own the rights to that character.
8) Whether or not Bedelia condones or participates in Hannibal’s crimes is left ambiguous. This is something that seems forced and implausible to me. (Viewers should know if she’s dirty or not.) This is despite the fact that Gillian Anderson is a great actress with great delivery of ambiguous dialogue. Yes, I do understand that both characters are supposed to be brilliant, and can trade cryptic comments and understand each other perfectly. But would this happen all the time? Wouldn’t Bedlia, just once, look over and say, “You know, I’m not on board with all this killing and stuff?”
9) Shot for shot, the preview here is heavily reminiscent of Brett Ratner’s film, “Red Dragon” (2002).
10) The “Red Dragon” storyline is indeed happening; we just won’t see it right away. Actor Richard Armitage looks great. They will return to Baltimore if Francis Dolarhyde is a baddie — this would also explain why we see actors portraying Baltimore residents in past seasons.
11) No Inspector Pazzi, despite Florence being referenced.
12) Mason Verger returns. He looks different. Because WHEN ANIMALS ATTACK.
13) Some of my Mommy friends have young children who occasionally will lose a baby tooth. I suggest that this is a great family-friendly program with which to introduce to them the story of “The Tooth Fairy.”
A short review of “The Walking Dead” Season 3.
I am blogging my past TV reviews from Facebook; this was my take on Season 3 of “The Walking Dead.”
**********
When “The Walking Dead” capped off its third season last night, it was a bit anticlimactic. (Am I crazy, or did the “war” they’ve been building up to last less than three minutes?) The Season 3 opener had ten times the action, and the penultimate episode with Merle was also better. Last night’s finale was still decent, though, and it capped off a great season, to which I’d give a 9 out of 10.
Season 3 rescued the show from a lackluster second season, turning a … weirdly contexted melodrama into first-rate horror-thriller. Great action, scares and tension, and amazing special effects by Greg Nicotero. It had greatly improved dialogue, especially toward the end. (See Rick’s conversation with the Governor, for example.) The consistency and momentum of the plot and characters, while not perfect, were vastly improved too. Carl, the kid everybody loved to hate, just might be my favorite character, thanks to good writing that turned him into a complex, darker character. And the kid playing him is simply outstanding.
Two rejections from publishers in one day?
That’s a glitch in The Matrix.
I can’t sleep because random stuff keeps occurring to me.
The acronym for Helen of Troy is H.O.T.?
MIND = BLOWN.
A tiny review of “V/H/S/2” (2013).
I wanted to love “V/H/S/2” (2013). I really did. I loved the first one, and I like the subversive, no-holds-barred tone of the franchise. But I can only give this a 4 out of 10.
The first segment had a creative premise; the point-of-view device for the second segment was fantastic. (Why hasn’t a zombie filmmaker thought of that before?) But there is just too much bad acting, bad dialogue and annoying shaky-cam, along with some painfully low-budget special effects.
I’d recommend viewing only the second segment and skipping the rest. (And even that one isn’t exactly high art.)
When Stanley Kubrick Meets Alfred Hitchcock (A Short Review of “Ex Machina”)
I was all set to skewer “Ex Machina” (2015). I thought that the title smacked of cliche and pretense, and it looked so much like a boiler-plate boy-meets-girlbot maudlin melodrama. How wrong I was — this movie deserves a 9 out of 10 for being the smartest and most surprising film I have seen in recent memory.
I won’t say much, for fear of spoilers. All three leads handed in perfect performances — Alicia Vikander is simply fantastic as an example of artificial intelligence, and this is coming from a nerdboy who has rewatched everything from “Blade Runner” to “2001: A Space Odyssey” to Ron Moore’s “Battlestar Galactic.” Man, how amazing would it be to watch a film in which the HAL 9000 is her adversary? (I want to say more here about that, but won’t spoil why it would be so interesting.)
If you are watching this movie and think it is descending into cliche and predictability, stay with it. I counted no fewer than four major twists by the story’s conclusion. One is predictable; the remaining three are not. And the last one is a real killer. I was all set to write up an account of the story’s plot holes, but director Alex Garland was 10 steps ahead of me the entire time.
My only two remaining criticisms are pretty mild, and they are echoing other reviewers. One, this movie is a bit long and slowly paced. Two, we see extremely little action, which wouldn’t have been gratuitous if the story called for it. The one “action” sequence we see is also underwhelming and poorly staged. (Its combatants seem to be on heavy doses of lithium.) Please, people, do not pay for a ticket thinking you are about to see an action-thriller … Or … even a quickly paced thriller.
Don’t let those quibbles bother you, though. This is a great cerebral science fiction movie.
King Snake.
Because I said so.
And because sometimes Daredevil is even cooler when he is a psychopathic, impeccably mannered, articulate English crime lord who is repeatedly vanquished by a child.
(It isn’t as stupid as it sounds.)
One scary “Mama.”
“Mama” (2013) was quite good; I’d give it an 8 out of 10. Jessica Chastain does a great job with a well written character arc — initially unlikable, but then a surprising heroine. And it’s great that she got top billing, instead of the film’s obligatory telegenic male protagonist, who actually spends a lot of time off-screen.
Guillermo del Toro actually didn’t direct this, as I thought — he was the executive producer. The director and screenwriter was Andrés Muschietti. But I swear this has the feel of del Toro’s work. It could stand as a thematic sequel to the wonderful “Don’t Be Afraid of the Dark” remake, for example, which also had strong elements of childhood fantasy and motherhood as a theme.
And what a great and beautifully creepy use of CGI to render the title baddie. In fact, the whole movie was visually terrific, with a fairy-tale-ish use of movement and color that was cool, creative and different. There are really clever flourishes for fright-flick fans — I personally really liked the tug-of-war scene.
I occasionally noticed some plot-convenient mysteries … one character is assaulted but survives? And “Mama” can move with either lightning speed or plodding slowness, depending on what the story calls for. And … at one point … do we actually have a zombie? Do we need to call on Rick Grimes and his band of survivors from “The Walking Dead?”
This was fun. Check it out.
Eric Robert Nolan, Author 