“Full Dark, No Stars” is a good, solid collection of horror tales — four strong novellas by Stephen King that had me engrossed. Interestingly, three of the four tales — “1922,” “Big Driver,” and “A Good Marriage” — contain no supernatural elements whatsoever, and deal only with murders. The one tale of the supernatural — “Fair Extension” — is a shorter, faster, superior take on the basic plot device examined by the less-than-stellar “Needful Things.” It was typical King; parts were slow, but the pace didn’t change the fact that this was a great page-turner that was hard to put down. There were a few references to other King novels to please long-term fans, including a reference to “The Dark Tower” series. Even the Afterword was entertaining, as King delivered his down-to-earth recounting of how he got the ideas for each story. There’s some great trivia there, too — King says “The Long Walk” was the first novel he wrote, at the tender age of 18. My copy of “Full Dark, No Stars” had a bonus feature — a damn fantastic short story called “Under the Weather.” Don’t miss it. 
Tag Archives: review
Stephen King’s “Mr. Mercedes”
Stephen King’s “Mr. Mercedes” is a terrific thriller that will be sure to please his fans. It’s the story of very unlikely heroes and friends pursuing an at-large, highly intelligent and remorseless spree killer/serial killer.
It is occasioanlly slow. We spend way too much time getting to know Hodges, for example, before his character becomes either likable or even plot-relevant. But this is forgivable for such a great book. I loved the characters and found certain scenes touching. And the character development for the eponymous Mr. Mercedes is consistently disturbing.
And for horror fans … Jeez, does this book deliver. It’s a frightening story, to say the least. One part, involving a certain mixup (I can’t say more without spoilers), is positively horrifying, even by Stephen King standards.
My pal Steve Miller told me that this is the start of a trilogy — I can’t wait for the next installment.
A quick review of “Iron Man 3” (2013)
I love all the “Iron Man” movies, and I was never even a fan of the comic book character. They’re the smartest movie franchise Marvel’s got going, with more plot, story and characters, all combined with the action and special effects for a great comic book movie. (They’re only real competitor in these areas would be Spider-Man 2.) This was just great – I’d give it a 9 out of 10..
My review of “The Hunger Games” (2012)
I am blogging some of my past years’ movie reviews on Facebook — this was what I thought of “The Hunger Games.”
*****
Yeah, okay. As it turns out, “The Hunger Games” (2012) was actually a really good movie – I’d cheerfully give it an 8 out of 10. I thought that this would be a sci-fi equivalent of a Twilight franchise, or a mainstreamed ripoff of “Battle Royale” (2000), but it was none of the former and only a little of the latter.
It took a decent story and populated it with fully realized, three-dimensional characters, then cast good actors across the board. You know a movie works if you’re cheering for the main protagonist. It was also a surprisingly dark story for a young adult book adaptation.
The pacing was a little off … characters and plot devices are raised and dropped a little abruptly, and you can tell they were included because they were elements of Suzanne Collins’ book that fans were expecting. And the action directing wasn’t the best I’ve seen – the final standoff was a little awkwardly staged and anticlimactic. Those are small quibbles, though.
If anyone really likes this, it might be fun to watch this and “Battle Royale” back-to-back on a rainy Saturday.
A few quick words about “The Last Exorcism Part 2” (2013)
“The Last Exorcism Part 2” wasn’t quite as bad as everyone else said it was – I’d give it a 7 out of 10. Ashley Bell is a terrific actress, and many scenes were nice and creepy. I like stuff that’s a little more creative and interesting than standard slasher fare.
A few flaws stand out. The scene where she hovers above the bed is obviously wirework if we can see the actress swinging back and forth. It also boggles the mind that we see zero evidence of police involvement throughout the movie. This was still fun, though.
A quick (and blasphemous) review of “Halloween II” (1981)
You see this poster for “Halloween II” (1981)? This is more entertaining than the actual movie. Haddonfield, IL is a pretty boring town, and the introduction of a serial killer doesn’t much change that.
My fellow horror fans might stone me for that kind of blasphemy. But one of my deep, dark secrets is that I’m often underwhelmed by classic horror films. This film picks up at the same moment of the same night as the original “Halloween” (1978) – which was itself, upon revisiting, thinly plotted and quite slow. Why not make them the same movie?
I’d give this film a 2 out of 10 for a creepy premise and one scary sequence involving a hot tub. I think that’s probably generous.
My review of “Grave Encounters” (2011)
Damn it, “Grave Encounters” (2011) was very good horror movie for its first half. Sure, it was unoriginal, borrowing heavily from everything from “Paranormal Activity” to “[REC].” But it was still good – I’m the kind of guy that says that horror movies actually DON’T have to reinvent the wheel to scare us.
It had a decent setup and a great location – I don’t know what that old building was, but it was perfect. And for a while, it was a great “haunted house” story. I especially liked the first big scare, even if it’s something we’ve seen before, as well as the part where a chained door, once penetrated, shows us something unexpected. I was genuinely spooked.
Then it just disintegrated towards the end. The “scares” were so cartoonish and over the top that any suspension of disbelief was lost. This seemed more like an especially ambitious “haunted house” Halloween attraction, and less like a professionally made film.
I can only give this a 5 out of 10 after it fell apart the way it did. Oh, well. You’ve got to give the filmmakers an “E” for effort.
Question – does Hollywood hate documentary filmmakers? It seems every time I see a movie like this – like “The Blair Witch Project,” or “Diary of the Dead,” – the person in charge is a cheesy, melodramatic, self-absorbed quasi-intellectual who puts everyone else at risk. Why is that?
My review of “Gardens of the Night” (2008)
“Gardens of the Night” (2008) is a generally well made film, but it’s damned hard to review. We can’t … enjoy the movie, because it isn’t meant to entertain. It’s a detailed docudrama that shows the abduction and forced prostitution of an eight-year-old girl, then the permanent destruction of her life in her teen years.
It’s gut-wrenching. The first half of the movie plays almost like a twisted procedural in which a child pornographer and slaver (brilliantly and unexpectedly portrayed by Tom Arnold) tricks and kidnaps young Leslie (Ryan Simpkins).
We’re shown the nuts and bolts of everything – starting with how Arnold’s character earns her trust (“Can you help me find my dog?”, “I’m a friend of your father’s.”) And Arnold is so convincing in the role, it’s easy to see how lines like this can fool a child. We see how she’s drugged, imprisoned, and persuaded that her parents don’t want her anymore, then how she’s coaxed and reassured into prostitution to pedophiles. There were a few times when I wanted to shout at the screen – such as when Arnold’s character actually coaches the prepubescent girl about what customers expect. Then we’re even shown how children are marketed and sold – with catalogs and photos and polite, secret business meetings. Jeremy Sisto and Harold Perrineau show up in effective supporting roles that will turn your stomach.
Then – midway through the film, we fast-forward to Leslie’s life as a teenager, where she is now somehow free of Arnold and his even more evil partner (well played by Kevin Zegers, who I remember best as the sweetnatured, clean-cut kid in Zack Snyder’s 2004 “Dawn of the Dead” remake).
Again – it’s hard to know whether to recommend this movie. To call it sad would be an understatement. It IS a pretty well made film – the acting is great all around, and especially from Arnold. And Imdb.com says that that writer/director Damian Harris developed it after years of research among child victims.
It has some problems, though. For a drama about a victim, its central character just isn’t well rendered or extremely likable. It’s awkwardly structured. Unless I’m mistaken, we never find out how Leslie escapes her captors.
The movie is also poorly paced, I think … it drags a bit around the middle and the anticlimactic ending feels like a postscript. Finally, it seems to make little use of John Malkovich’s genius in a supporting role. (That guy is goddam mesmerizing – like Anthony Hopkins, he could read names out of a telephone book and make it interesting.)
Quite honestly, if this movie is as accurate as it claims (and there’s no reason to think it wouldn’t be), it would make a great educational tool. No child should watch it, but it’s so explicit and procedural in nature that it seems like a great resource for training police officers or parents.
If you watch this, I strongly recommend watching “Bill and Ted’s Bogus Journey” or “Old School” afterward – y’know … just so you don’t kill yourself.
My quick review of “From Within” (2008)
I am blogging some of my past years’ movie reviews on Facebook.
*****
It’s Born Again Christians versus Wiccans in a Small Town Smackdown!!! If you’re a member of either of those groups, you just might be offended by “From Within” (2008). Neither group is portrayed favorably – you could easily retitle this horror movie as “When Stereotypes Attack.”
Still, this was a decent fright-flick. People are attacked by their own demonic dopplegangers which, incidentally, can strike in broad daylight. It was scary and diverting, and there were two nice surprises at the end. I’d give it an 8 out of 10.
Watch the end-credits too, to get a real sense of just how things turned out for everyone. Creepy!
My review of “Friday the 13th: Part 2” (1981)
It’s my considered opinion that a lot of classic horror movies simply do not stand the test of time. “Friday the 13th: Part 2” (1981) wasn’t great, but it was okay. I’d give it a 6 out of 10.
A psychopath kills teens one by one in a remote setting. Don’t most modern videogames have more of a story than that? Sure, there’s an effective urban legend-style motive – he witnessed his mother’s beheading in the original film, and has since lived ferally in the woods. But does that make sense? If Jason was alive, why did his mother seek revenge for his drowning? Was she unaware he was there?
Still, this movie deserves some credit. It makes an honest effort to build distinct characters and tension. It doesn’t exactly work. These people don’t act like any teenagers I’ve ever known, even if I was a nerd in high school.
There are a few nice “jump moments,” especially when one character sits up in bed. But the director used way too many close-ups and slow-mo.
I’m left with a couple of questions. In the later movies, Jason is basically an undead Superman. He can’t even be hurt. He’s a zombie kryptonian. Here, he appears quite human. Did they make changes to the character in the later films?
Also, the goofy redheaded guy stays out drinking all night and never returns to the camp, sparing him from the carnage. Why? What purpose did this character serve in the story? Did the screenwriter just forget about him? Or is this a moral? If you party all night, will you live longer?
All in all, this was strictly an average film.
Eric Robert Nolan, Author 