Category: Books, Movies, TV & Web

by Stephen King

Needful

 

Musings:  1) Needful Things was published shortly after King gave up drinking and doping, which coincides with the decline of his most creative period.  I don’t believe it can be happenstance – the man was simply a more inspired, original writer back when he was snorting and swigging.  2) Needful Things is middling King.  It’s well-crafted, often amusing, and laugh-out-loud funny near the climax.  It’s also over-the-top, alternately too somber or too silly, and not particularly scary.  3) The knight-in-shining-armor hero and his perfect girlfriend are the least interesting characters in the story – too bad we have to spend so much time with them.  4) I do like King’s theme about how our possessions tend to take possession of us.

 

© 2010-2026 grouchyeditor.com (text only)

Share

Sea1

 

Great settings can compensate for a multitude of movie sins — bad acting, sloppy direction, ridiculous plots.  I will find myself watching a piece of junk like Anaconda, or Deep Blue Sea, a second time (or a third time) simply to soak in the cool visuals.  This is why, I suspect, they invented the mute button.

Without further ado, and to paraphrase Julie Andrews, these are a few of my favorite sets:

 

Alien1

 

The spaceship in Alien.  A haunted house in outer space — what more can a movie fan ask for?

 

Alien2

Alien3

 

**

 

Swiss1

 

The tree house in Swiss Family Robinson.  If possible, I’d swap out the organ for an entertainment center, but otherwise we are all set.

 

Swiss2

 

**

 

Overlook2         Overlook1

 

The Overlook Hotel in The Shining.  Stephen King did not approve of Kubrick’s movie, but who needs Stephen King when you’ve got a walk-in freezer full of ice cream?

 

**

 

Thing1

 

The Antarctic research center in The Thing.  I’d prefer to be stranded with six Hooters girls, rather than a bunch of unshaven scientists, but you can’t have everything.

 

Thing2

 

**

 

Anaconda

 

The ramshackle boat in Anaconda.  This is a great example of a setting that looks like fun from the comfort of your Barcalounger.  In reality, I’d probably want the snake to eat me rather than spend five minutes on a boat like this.

 

**

 

Sea2

 

The oceanic research lab in Deep Blue Sea.  I must have a thing for isolated research labs.  (Also pictured at top.)

 

Sea3

 

**

 

Name1

 

The monastery in The Name of the Rose.  Why is it that places that would be hell to actually live in often look so inviting on the screen?

 

Name2

Name3

 

**

 

 

Hogwarts.  I don’t care how old you are — we all want to live at Hogwarts.

 

© 2010-2026 grouchyeditor.com (text only)

Share

                                                              by Philip K. Dick

Ubik

 

There are reasons I’m not a big fan of most science fiction.  Ubik, by sci-fi legend Philip K. Dick, is a case in point.  Dick’s futuristic tale of life-after-death and alternate universes has some fascinating ideas and some amusing situations – but it also has paper-thin characters and dialogue, and clunky prose.  I can deal with fantasy leaps of logic when they are served up by an H. G. Wells, but Dick was no H.G. Wells.

When I finished Ubik, I felt much the same way that Dick’s main character does in mid-story: “Very confusing, Joe Chip said to himself.  He did not like it at all.  Granted it had a satisfying symmetrical quality, but on the other hand, it struck him as untidy.”

 

© 2010-2026 grouchyeditor.com (text only)

Share

Mandingo1

 

Mandingo is a curiosity that should be embraced by two groups:  historians, and fans of schlock cinema.  It’s a film that depicts reality — and that’s why you might feel the need to take a shower after watching it.

The 1975 movie, based on a novel by Kyle Onstott, presents 1830s Southern slavery without revisionism, without sugarcoating.  Nothing is implied when it can be shown:  slave auctions, whippings, rapes, and sex between masters and slaves.  Historians should have no objections.

And why should fans of schlock cinema love Mandingo?  Nothing is implied when it can be shown:  slave auctions, whippings, rapes, and sex between masters and slaves.

 

Mandingo2

 

James Mason is all bluster and bigotry as the patriarch of decrepit Falconhurst, an Alabama plantation.  He wants a grandson, and that means son Hammond (Perry King) must marry and procreate.  Hammond chooses Blanche (Susan George), a conniving belle who makes Scarlett O’Hara seem shy and reserved, by comparison.  When Hammond learns on their wedding night that Blanche is no virgin, he takes it poorly and continues his extracurricular activities with a comely black slave (Brenda Sykes).  Blanche seeks retaliation, and all melodramatic hell breaks loose.

Mandingo is vulgar but has lots of hooks, including Mason as the gravel-voiced, rheumatic plantation owner; former boxer Ken Norton as a “Mandingo” (an ethnic branch from West Africa) named Mede, who is unlucky enough to attract the attention of Blanche; and some of the most gratuitous sex and violence to come out of 1970s cinema — a decade not known for skimping on sex and violence.

 

Mandingo3

 

But mostly, Mandingo has British actress Susan George.  George, so memorable as Dustin Hoffman’s unhappy wife in Straw Dogs, is mesmerizing as Blanche, a vixen who personifies evil and yet — when you look closely at her circumstances — is not entirely unsympathetic.  The fairly graphic sex scene between lusty George and hesitant Norton was quite daring in 1975.

Mandingo is a potboiler (quite literally, in one scene) with strong moments.  Whether those moments strike you as historically important, or mere titillation, is of course up to you.     Grade:  B-

 

Mandingo4 Mandingo5

 

Director:  Richard Fleischer  Cast:  James Mason, Susan George, Perry King, Richard Ward, Brenda Sykes, Ken Norton, Lillian Hayman, Roy Poole, Paul Benedict,  Debra Blackwell, Laura Misch Owens  Release:  1975

 

Mandingo6 Mandingo7

 

Mandingo8 Mandingo9

 

Mandingo10 Mandingo11

 

Mandingo13 Mandingo14

 

Mandingo15 Mandingo16

 

Watch the Trailer  (click here)

 

Mandingo12

 

© 2010-2026 grouchyeditor.com (text only)

Share

by Nora Ephron

Heartburn

 

“I would rather have you laugh at me than feel sorry for me.”  So writes Ephron at the end of Heartburn, her 1983 autobiographical novel about the breakup of her marriage to journalist Carl Bernstein.  Funny, clever, and ever self-deprecating, Ephron’s humor does indeed cover up any traces of self-pity.  She has the humorist’s gift for seeing ordinary incidents in extraordinary ways, and then putting that vision on paper.  This is Ephron describing an embrace with her housekeeper:  “Juanita gave me a big hug, which was awkward since she was only about four feet six inches tall, and a hug from her felt like the Heimlich maneuver.”  Good stuff, that, but the book is also more than a bit sad.

 

© 2010-2026 grouchyeditor.com (text only)

Share

Drive1.                                                         

 

These are a few things that Drive has going for it:  1) the hottest actor of the year, Ryan Gosling; 2) arguably the most promising actress of 2010, Carey Mulligan; 3) a director, Nicolas Winding Refn, who brings a distinctive European flavor to the project; 4) handsome production design and striking visuals.

None of that matters, because Drive goes nowhere thanks to a lackluster story and characters who are thinner than windshield-wiper fluid.  It’s all very frustrating, because the film would seem to have so much potential.  Yet once again, Hollywood puts polish and shine on a movie and neglects the most important element, good storytelling.

Gosling plays “the driver,” an enigmatic Steve McQueen type, a soft-spoken loner who is on the wrong side of the law but who harbors — you guessed it — a kinder, gentler side.  Just in case we overlook this aspect of his personality, we are treated to scenes of Gosling watching cartoons with a kid.  Somehow, I can’t picture McQueen taking time out in The Getaway to watch an episode of SpongeBob SquarePants.

 

Drive2

 

The driver decides to bless a girl next door with his niceness, which leads to big problems.  Mulligan, so good in An Education and in Never Let Me Go, has the thankless role of “the girl” in another example of lousy parts for women in Hollywood “A” movies.  Mulligan plays a single mother (dad is in prison) whose main purpose in Drive is to cast sad looks at the men in her life:  expressions of longing for Gosling, and looks of despair for her no-good husband, an ex-con called “Standard.”  (I checked, but I could find no character in the film named “Automatic.”)

The supporting cast is also wasted.  Bryan Cranston is the foolish sidekick whom any graduate of Movies 101 will tell you is expendable in a movie like this.  Christina Hendricks looks fetching but comes and goes in no time at all.  Albert Brooks, as a foul-tempered money man, is one of the film’s few bright spots.  The undernourished plot is a heist-gone-wrong story that you’ve seen many times before.

Refn, who inexplicably took home a Best Director award from the Cannes Film Festival for this mediocrity, wants his film to be like Shane with car chases.  Shane was cool and had lots of soul.  Drive looks cool, but has no soul.      Grade:  C+

 

Drive3 Drive4

 

Director:  Nicolas Winding Refn  Cast:  Ryan Gosling, Carey Mulligan, Bryan Cranston, Albert Brooks, Oscar Isaac, Christina Hendricks, Ron Perlman, Kaden Leos, Jeff Wolfe, James Biberi, Russ Tamblyn  Release:  2011

 

Drive5 Drive6

 

Drive7

 

Watch Trailers and Clips  (click here)

 

Drive8

 

© 2010-2026 grouchyeditor.com (text only)

Share

by Kingsley Amis

Jim

 

Reading Lucky Jim is like watching a 1940s Hollywood romantic comedy, but with a British bent.  The novel is polished, clever, amusing … and dated.  I suspect that Amis’s tale of rebellious college instructor Jim Dixon had more resonance for earlier generations, although its puncturing of academic pomposity is a timeless pleasure.  But speaking as a 21st century, American reader, I dare say that much of the book struck me as more peculiar than funny.

 

© 2010-2026 grouchyeditor.com (text only)

Share

Cottage1

 

Maybe the bar has been set so low for horror-comedies that I no longer expect much from them, but heaven help me, I liked The Cottage.  I liked it more than the Scream movies, which are often too cute for their own good.  I liked it more than the camp classic Motel Hell, which doesn’t live up to its reputation.

The Cottage is engaging mostly because of its characters.  When teens take a pickaxe in the skull in most horror spoofs, I tend to silently cheer.  But in this film, I actually wanted the people to survive the inevitable carnage.  (I won’t say whether or not they do.)

Bug-eyed Andy Serkis, who’s made a name for himself acting in motion-capture roles (Rise of the Planet of the Apes, Gollum in The Lord of the Rings), plays it straight as one of two bumbling brothers who make the mistake of kidnapping the foul-mouthed daughter (Jennifer Ellison) of a mobster.  Reece Shearsmith, as the other brother, and Steven O’Donnell, as the mobster’s son, complete this Three Stooges redux.

 

Cottage2

 

The Cottage is a strange hybrid of genres.  The first half of the story is a kidnapping caper; the second half is a bloody, stupid, and funny send-up of horror favorites like The Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Psycho.  The last half of the movie, nonsensical as it is (how in hell does the story go from crime thriller to slasher flick?), is nevertheless the most effective.  The killer, a deformed farmer, looks like he’s wearing a rubber mask and makes noises that seem filtered through … a rubber mask.  If that sounds ridiculous, rest assured, it is.

But I liked the characters, I dug the tongue-in-cheek tone, and there were just enough creepy scenarios and amusing one-liners to keep me hooked.  Says one bumbling brother to the uncooperative kidnap victim as they flee the deranged farmer:  “This is the worst night of my life.  Not only have I met you, I’ve stumbled into the only house in the country with someone worse than you.”      Grade:  B

 

Cottage3 Cottage4

Cottage5 Cottage6

 
DirectorPaul Andrew Williams  Cast:  Andy Serkis, Reece Shearsmith, Steven O’Donnell, Jennifer Ellison, Logan Wong, Jonathan Chan-Pensley, Dave Legeno  Release:  2008

 

Cottage7 Cottage8

 

                                               Watch Trailers (click here)

 

© 2010-2026 grouchyeditor.com (text only)

Share

Julia1

 

I wanted to like Julia’s Eyes, really I did.  It’s been a long time since we’ve had a good blind-damsel-in-distress movie, maybe since Audrey Hepburn turned off the lights in 1967’s Wait Until Dark.  Alas, despite a handsome production, nifty direction, and some good acting, Julia’s Eyes is … dumb.

The thriller begins promisingly with the death of Julia’s twin sister Sara (both played by Belen Rueda), apparently by suicide.  Both women suffer from a degenerative eye disease.  Sara had gone completely blind, and it’s just a matter of time before Julia does, as well.  But was Sara’s death really a suicide?  Julia doesn’t believe so, but can she convince anyone else?  Have we seen this plot before?

Director Guillem Morales’s film goes wrong where nearly all films of this type do:  far-fetched storytelling.  The first half of the movie is basically a whodunit, but Who Did It becomes obvious early on.  Once we have that information, the movie turns into a routine killer-chasing-heroine exercise, with stale elements borrowed from The Silence of the Lambs, Rear Window, and yes, Wait Until Dark.

 

Julia2

 

Unlike its esteemed predecessors, Julia’s Eyes lacks originality.  Instead, it has an abundance of clichés:  When Julia has an opportunity to stab the killer with a knife, she jabs him in the leg — that way, he won’t die and can continue to chase her.  We are asked to believe that the bad guy, played by an actor blessed with movie-star looks, is angry at the world because he feels “invisible” in day-to-day life.  And then there are the scary scenes that turn out to be — you guessed it — nightmares.

Some people will be drawn to this movie because one of its producers is Guillermo del Toro (Pan’s Labyrinth).  But as we’ve learned from Steven Spielberg, attaching a big name to a film project is no guarantee of quality.  Julia’s Eyes is frustratingly stupid.      Grade:  C+

 

Julia3 Julia4

Julia5 Julia6

 

Director:  Guillem Morales  Cast:  Belen Rueda, Lluis Homar, Pablo Derqui, Francesc Orella, Joan Dalmau, Boris Ruiz, Daniel Grao, Clara Segura, Catalina Munar  Release:  2010

 

Julia7

 

Watch Trailers and Clips  (click here)

 

Julia8

                             

© 2010-2026 grouchyeditor.com (text only)

Share

by Roald Dahl

Someone

Roald Dahl was, at times, too gifted a writer for his own good.  Dahl’s short stories in this collection (by the way, not written for children) are so devilishly entertaining, so artful at building suspense, that some of their endings can’t possibly live up to what precedes them.  But often they do.  Dahl’s tales of murder and the macabre are a showcase for colorful characters, locations and – above all – black humor, and so when some of the twist endings fall a bit flat, all is forgiven.

 

© 2010-2026 grouchyeditor.com (text only)

Share