Book Review: Doctor Sleep

I've reached my reading goal for February, after finishing Stephen King's "Dr. Sleep", a book I'd been meaning to read for a few months. I enjoyed the book. It is probably middle of the road as far as quality compared to his other books. He has written much better and he has written worse, but he is such a talented writer that even a book that is average by his standards is very good.

I can't analyze the book too closely in its role as a sequel to "The Shining"--it has been over a decade since I read it. I'm sure that some moments in "Dr. Sleep" would have had a bit more emotional resonance if I were more familiar with the original novel. This is not a significant problem, as "Dr. Sleep" works just fine as a standalone book. It tells its own story, and while it does feature callbacks to and locations from its predecessor, they are presented in a way that anyone coming to this book fresh will experience no confusion.

The book spans about ten years, most of them in the first half. King uses this time to establish his characters, something he is especially gifted at. He deftly gets inside the heads of his protagonists and antagonists alike. Things happen during these pages, but they mainly serve to let us get to know the characters and to get them to the places they need to be for the novel's second half. It's like King is setting up a game board, but he's skilled enough to keep us entertained while he does it.

The second half of the novel is when the plot really gets rolling and the various characters that we've been introduced to start to come into contact with one another. While the story has the potential to be big and epic (it is about a roving band of nomads who have lived for hundreds or thousands of years by killing children who possess 'the shining') it is presented in a much more intimate manner. It's not about the hundreds of kids these people have killed, but about a single girl they have set their sights on. The scope of the novel feels much smaller than it could be, but that is not a bad thing. King has proven in the past that he has the ability to tell epic and intimate stories with the same skill. In a world where many books and movies try to be as "big" as possible, it is refreshing to see a sequel that is not afraid to go small.

King is often an unpredictable writer, and I found that to be true here as well. There were some cases where I was pretty sure I knew where the story was going. It would start to go in that direction, but then suddenly changed course. I was sometimes taken off guard by how easy things seemed to go for the good guys. While it may have been better for the book to throw a few more challenges their way, it was also interesting to read something where the protagonists plans worked pretty much exactly as they hoped. It somewhat diminishes the drama, and I wouldn't like it if this happened in every book, but since it happens so rarely, it was fun to read just for the novelty.

I don't have any serious reservations about the book. The only complaint I could air is that, as I said earlier, King has done better in the past. Are the main characters well drawn? Is the story compelling? Are the villains memorable? Objectively, the answer to all of these questions is "Yes". In the context of all of King's other books, the answer is still "yes", but not quite as emphatic.

Oscar Marathon

This past weekend, I re-watched all of the Best Picture Oscar nominees at a series of screenings at a local theatre. I've already seen and commented on all of them, but after second (and in two cases, third) viewings, here are my current thoughts, in the order that the movies screened:

Gravity: Still a great technological accomplishment, but it wasn't nearly as impressive in a traditional, non-IMAX theatre. Again, I think that due to the complicated technical processes that went into making the film, its Best Picture nomination is not unwarranted. However, it seems to be considered one of the front-runners to actually win the prize, and that would not be justified. The film has a pretty fantastic one trick, but it's still a one trick pony.

The Wolf of Wall Street: This was the third time I had seen the movie. It's one minute shy of three hours long, and I have not been bored in the slightest for even a second of the almost nine hours I've spent watching the film. According to everything I've read, it doesn't stand a chance of winning Best Picture, but it probably should. It is an incredibly tight, fascinating film. I've seen movies half its runtime that have felt longer.

Nebraska: I enjoyed this more than the first time I saw it. This is, in part, because the audience seemed to be having a lot of fun with it. It's a fine film, but not really Best Picture material. I would have liked to see "Before Midnight" nominated in its place.

Captain Phillips: My opinion hasn't changed. The first half is still pretty good, while the second half drags on for too long.

12 Years a Slave: This is another one of the front runners to win Best Picture. Out of the films that seem to actually have a chance, it's the one that should win. It has its issues, but it does have a compelling narrative that draws the viewer in.

Her: I still like the first two-thirds of the film, but again, the ending was weak. In fact, the movie runs out of steam a little before that. It gets to the point where it has thoroughly explored its concept and seems to be treading water, not moving in any real direction. It never fully recovers from this.

Philomena: The other film I was seeing for the third time, and the only film I might want to win Best Picture over "The Wolf of Wall Street". My heart says, "Philomena", because I really, really liked it, but my head says that "Wolf" is actually the better film by a nose. Unfortunately, this stands no chance of actually winning, either.

Dallas Buyers Club: I still found it hard to get into the movie. It wasn't just the frequent title cards, either, although they are a convenient scapegoat. It is primarily, as my Dad said, that the plot is disjointed. There's no real sense of progression.

American Hustle: Generally considered the third most likely film to win Best Picture if "Gravity" or "12 Years a Slave" doesn't. It's good, but not great. My opinion that Jennifer Lawrence is the best thing about the film was reaffirmed.

Reviews: Robocop and About Last Night

36. Robocop
I was very briefly exit polled after seeing "Robocop". The first question was to rate the movie as 'Excellent', 'Very Good', 'Good', 'Fair', or 'Poor'. I said "Good." The second question was: "Would you recommend it to a friend?" My answer: "Depends on the friend." Final question: "Did it meet your expectations?" The answer was "Yes." I think this last question was the most important. There was some complaint in the fan community that it was a mistake to make the movie PG-13, and that it was dumbing down what many people liked about the original. I'm not unsympathetic to these claims, but, bearing them in mind, I went into "Robocop" expecting a competent, likely forgettable action film. In this regard it met my expectations, so I was happy with it.

The film does have its issues. The final third of the film in particular felt a bit rushed. I've seen enough films with seemingly benevolent big corporations to know that the company behind Robocop would turn out to be evil to some degree, but the film itself did nothing to foreshadow this. They almost wait until the main plot appears to be finished before revealing the sinister natures of certain characters, making the development feel tacked on as an excuse to stage the film's climax. If the lead character had discovered this deception along with the audience, it would have been a plot twist, worthy of being hidden for so long. Instead, the reveal is done in a scene with the villains talking amongst themselves. If this is how the film wanted to stage the reveal, it could have gained some dramatic tension by placing the reveal much earlier in the film.

None of this gets in the way of some decent action scenes. While none of the film's major set pieces are especially groundbreaking, they get the job done and provide basic entertainment. The most entertaining moments, however, are when Samuel L. Jackson is on screen, portraying a political pundit with his own television show. Admittedly, Jackson doesn't bring anything new to this role; he shouts and swears like we've seen him do several time before, but his role is a comedic one and it didn't bother me that he was repeating himself. He may shout and swear in a lot of his movies, but there are few who can do it better.

37. About Last Night
I don't have that much to say about this film. It was marginally entertaining while I was watching it, but it's even more forgettable than most. There were some funny moments, but not as many as I would have liked. Many of the jokes depended on explicit language to make them funny. This can earn laughs in the moment, but when there is little true cleverness behind a joke, it also leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

The film follows the typical beats one finds in a romantic comedy, but oftentimes they feel obligatory (they always are, but the movie should be able to hide that). When the main couple breaks up, there seems to be little motivation for it. It just happens because that is what's supposed to happen at that point in the movie. The same is true of their predictable reconciliation at the end. As I mentioned in my review of "That Awkward Moment", movies like this are like comfort food. We don't expect or want them to reinvent the wheel. We just want them to throw a fresh coat of paint on the concept. "About Last Night" doesn't even do that.

Reviews: The Lego Movie and Vampire Academy

34. The Lego Movie
I can't give a real review, since I was very tired when I went to see this. I was fighting the urge to nod off for the first half hour, then finally I did doze off for around ten minutes or so. After that, I was fine and perfectly aware for the second half of the movie.

It was somewhat amusing in parts, but there was nothing that makes me want to go back and see the first half with a clearer head. I tend to think that the movie is not quite as clever as a lot of people seem to be giving it credit for, but since I missed a brief section, I won't say that with absolute certainty. Maybe I'll catch those few minutes on cable some day.

35. Vampire Academy
This movie did not get off to a good start, but it overcame that to become a watchable, although by no means exceptional, bit of entertainment.

I found it very difficult to get into the movie for the first twenty minutes. Much of this time was filled with a massive exposition dump done via voiceover. The nature of several different supernatural creatures and other information about the universe of the film is explained all at once, almost as if the audience were sitting in a lecture hall. Most first installments of fantasy-themed series feature a character being introduced to a new world, allowing the audience to discover that world along with the character. In "Vampire Academy", the protagonist is already a part of the supernatural world, leaving her to explain the intricacies of it to the audience. I wish the screenwriter could have found a more organic way to show this information rather than telling it in such an unartful manner.

Fortunately, the film does eventually get past this opening and becomes a pleasant enough diversion. It has some trouble juggling different genres. It tries at times to be somewhat serious, while at others makes attempts at satirizing typical high school movies. I like it when films successfully pull off multiple genres, but "Vampire Academy" often didn't seem to know quite what it was trying do with particular scenes. Many of the moments designed to poke fun at similar scenes in other high school movies are not fully fleshed out. They'll establish an event or setting, like a "cafeteria" where vampires suck blood from human volunteers, but the joke never goes beyond that initial comparison. If you're going to have a cafeteria scene, why not show what a food fight would look like? The film is more successful when telling its main storyline. The central mystery is nothing truly great, but it managed to keep me interested. I also always enjoy seeing performances from Gabriel Byrne, who I've been a big fan of since the first season of "In Treatment".

In short, "Vampire Academy" was not a particularly good movie, but, after the exposition dump at the beginning, I did manage to enjoy myself.

Once Upon a Mattress

I recently finished portraying the Jester in a production of "Once Upon a Mattress" with Live Arts Maryland. I have done several shows with this group in the past and, as always, I had a blast. We have a very short rehearsal process, just one to two weeks, before our performances. Unfortunately, due to snow, we only got to have one performance this time instead of the usual two.

Here are some photos from rehearsals:

My Big Musical Number

Conferring With The King

Getting My Jester's Hat Put On

The Cast

Reviews: Groundhog Day and The Monuments Men

32. Groundhog Day
Another film in the "classics" series at  the local theatre, "Groundhog Day" is a movie that I'd seen before, although not in a while. While the basic premise of reliving the same day over and over again was not introduced by this film, it is probably the best known example of the concept in action, largely due to how well that premise is executed.

The film hits all of the same beats as the typical romantic comedies that get churned out with regularity, but the way in which that story is told makes it stand out, and elevates the film above its genre. The basic premise is thoroughly explored. We see Bill Murray's character experience both the joys and frustrations one would expect someone in such a situation to experience. The film doesn't tell a new story; it tells an old story in a new way, and does so wonderfully.

33. The Monuments Men
I recently said that I would soon be discussing a movie that I would not be willing to go see again under any circumstances. "The Monuments Men" is that movie. It is a boring, uninspired mess of a film, without a single even remotely memorable character.

The film's problems start very early on. In most "team" movies, each member gets an introduction establishing who they are and maybe giving them a quirky character trait to make them easy to remember. In "The Magnificent Seven", the team is gathered one by one, each under different circumstances. In "The Monuments Men" the team is gathered during a musical montage with no dialogue whatsoever.

After introducing all of its characters without really introducing them, the film then breaks the team into groups, sending them off into unconnected storylines for much of the movie. These storylines are not edited together well. Instead of creating any type of continuity, the film just seems to randomly be cutting back and forth between unrelated scenes. This doesn't just kill the film's momentum--it prevents any momentum from being built in the first place. Instead of watching anything that could actually pull the viewer in, we are instead forced to listen to repeated lectures about how important art is. The film doesn't have a single scene of genuine tension in it, not even during its sad excuse for a "climax". It should never have been released.

Book Review: Divergent

Although I am eager to read Stephen King's "Dr. Sleep", I decided to read that as the second of my two books this month. I want to really be able to concentrate on and get into the book, which will be easier to do now that the show I'm in ends tonight and I won't be going to rehearsals every day.

Instead, I read "Divergent" as my first book of the month. It came recommended by my sister, who really enjoyed it and said that I should read it before the movie comes out. She gave it, among several other books, a brief write-up in her blog, here.

Unfortunately, she seems to have enjoyed the book a lot more than I did. I was not bored by the book and I did not dislike it, but I never found it truly compelling.

The biggest issue I have with the book is that it doesn't stand on its own. I knew going in that it was the first book in a trilogy, but I hoped that it would tell its own complete story as well as setting the stage for sequels. Instead, the whole book feels like a prologue. It starts off quickly enough, maybe even a bit too quickly--the main character's initial situation is barely established before it is changed. Then, however, the book moves into an extended section based on her training to be accepted into a new place. I was expecting this section to last maybe 100-150 pages, but instead it lasted almost the entire book.

Having a book solely about this training process would have been fine, but for the repeated hints about the "real story" being dropped. Knowing that something bigger was coming made me want the book to just get to it already, especially after having gone through several hundred pages. When the book finally gets there, it does so very suddenly and the last few chapters almost feel tacked on, as if they are only there to jump start the sequels.

The original "Star Wars" movie sets up its trilogy very well. It creates a new universe and establishes protagonists and antagonists that are still alive at the end of the film, ready to do battle again in future installments. It also tells its own complete story. We find out about the Death Star at the very beginning of the film, and the rising action throughout the story all leads up to the triumphant victory where it is destroyed at the end. The door is open for sequels, but the movie was clearly about its own events. "Divergent" creates its own universe and establishes some ongoing characters, but instead of being about its own story, it seems more concerned with setting up its sequels. I'm sure I'll get around to reading them eventually, and I hope they're good enough to warrant this protracted setup.