“An Echo of Murder” is a recent addition to the William Monk series of Victorian mysteries created by Anne Perry.  Commander William Monk of the Thames River Police is called out to look into the bizarre murder of a Hungarian immigrant which has ritualistic overtones. Unfortunately, the killer does not appear to stop with just one victim. It is clear that the Hungarians living and working along the Thames have a serial killer in their midst.

As usual with Anne Perry, there are deeper, more personal memories and heartaches being unearthed as well.  An old friend of Hester Monk’s, with whom she served on the battlefields of the Crimean War, has fallen under suspicion. There is also an exploration of the aftermath of Hester’s decision to use her skills as a nurse far from home in the chaos of war, leading to some devastating personal consequences on the home front.  I had forgotten that Hester had a brother with whom she was estranged after some tragic family circumstances. Anyway, he was reintroduced with a young orphan as his ward, and that could give the series a little interesting dynamic as it continues.

William Monk’s amnesia seems to have returned to the background again. The first book in the series introduced him with having no memory of his past and piecing it together as the series unfolded over the past years.  Only those closest to him know of his rather unusual handicap, however I think Perry made a good choice with having Monk make peace with not being able to actually recover his memory.  Many of his questions had been answered in his turbulent investigative career, but it’s still important for the reader to understand what made him fairly unique in the world of literary detective fiction.

I found some of the personal dynamics and growth of various characters to be more compelling than the actual crime, however I often feel that way reading Anne Perry. Scuff, an orphan taken in some time ago by the Monks, is on the cusp of manhood and has decided to embark on a medical career.  Although he shares some fogginess about his own past and origins, much like Monk, his problem was brought on more by lack of adult guidance, malnutrition, and just having to survive the meaner streets and ports of London with only his wits and agility.  Scuff could not remember his own name, so he has adopted the moniker of Will Monk, in  honor of his mentor and guardian.

The story ending up as a courtroom drama is getting too predictable. Perry could probably stand to break the pattern a little bit. The Monks have a complicated friendship with a barrister named Oliver Rathbone, who really keeps turning up in every book under occasionally seemingly forced circumstances. He’s an interesting enough character, but I want to see Monk do more legwork along the river. I want to see Monk get into a scuffle or two. I don’t need him to have to go to court again and endure more gasping and outraged onlookers as he testifies.

Anne Perry does not appear too shy about letting some of her social justice colors fly. This novel really seems inspired by all the controversy over immigration in recent years, although it isn’t borrowed directly by current headlines.  I do like that she chose the Hungarian community as the subject since I don’t usually hear much about them. I imagine there is a fascinating history to explore regarding the clash of cultures between the English and the Hungarians, especially in the middle of the Victorian era.  I also felt reminded that the issues facing our nation and dominating our headlines have really been going on far longer than we care to remember.

To be fair, Anne Perry probably feels somewhat obligated to the expectations of her fans, but as a fan myself, I have to say it’s alright with me if she bucks a few of her story traditions at times.  I still enjoy the characters and how they have developed over the years. I like Monk in his most recent position, but I think Perry can contrive a reason for him to be off the river occasionally, giving him some freedom to roam the city, if not the country.  The crime itself was moderately interesting if a little overdone in other crime fiction, however the motives behind the murders was a bit of an unexpected twist. The solution did really seem to present itself more by dumb luck than anyone’s actual cleverness.  It’s still a good book in the grand scheme of things, and I will likely read the next one.

From the grimy and troubled shores of the Thames in the nineteenth century to a future where people seek asylum from their troubles in virtual reality, I will next be reading “Ready Player One” by Ernest Cline.

“Bad Times at the El Royale” is a thriller written and directed by Drew Goddard. I was sort of assuming for some reason that it was based on novel. Nope…Goddard did this one all out of his darkly and twisted imagination and it came out pretty well.

I am not sure who I would call the lead since there is more of an ensemble feel to it.  It stars Jeff Bridges, who puts in his usually compelling performance, alongside Jon Hamm, Cynthia Erivo, Dakota Johnson, and Chris Hemsworth in a rather surprisingly sinister role which he handled quite convincingly as well.

This is dubbed a neo-noir thriller, which I can attest to.  It does feel like something along the lines Mickey Spillane or Raymond Chandler would have written.

It starts off with an eclectic small group of people who have gathered at a curiously deserted hotel that sits right on the border between California and Nevada apparently not far from Reno.  The El Royale seems to be under the sole care of a rather jittery young man named Miles, played by Lewis Pullman, who is new to me.  Pullman does a fine job as well.

Almost all of these visitors has an agenda or purpose that is slowly reveals as the movie unfolds. One character is generally more honest about her purpose and lot in life, but you’re not always sure you can trust her either.

It is one of those movies that is a little heavy on altered perspectives and flashbacks. You sometimes see repeated scenes from a different viewpoint, which can be a touch frustrating.  Those moments are still handled quite well.

There were a couple of loose threads in the story that I think could have been tied up better.  The film did avoid being entirely predictable, which was nice. Every now and then, some true originality can occasionally peek out of Hollywood and tease us, making us wonder why writers can’t have a more consistently fertile imagination.

There were some cast members that I did not really know all that well, but they held their own against their better known and seasoned colleagues as far as performances went.

There were a couple of times where I thought the movies dragged a bit, and I felt there were still some important questions left unanswered, however the movie is still very engaging overall.  If you like a little grim and gritty violence, loose morals and shifting loyalties, and just general human depravity in your cinematic outings, this is one to check out.

“Scarecrows” is a horror film that was released in 1988 from Effigy Films. William Wesley and Richard Jefferies are the screenwriters of this mildly interesting, gruesome cinematic achievement.  Okay, it’s a B film. No actor in this thing is anyone that would be recognizable to most of the general audience.  There is also some atrocious dialogue. I’m sorry, but having a character say something along the lines of “I think this place is possessed by demonic demons” is just inexcusable. How that one got by the editors is very perplexing.  That just seems to be glaringly bad even for a film of this subpar caliber.

Now, not everything is terrible. The basic premise is that a group of mercenaries pulled off a heist of some sort and made their escape by hijacking a cargo pilot with a father/daughter crew.  One of the thieves turns on his cohorts and jumps out of the plane with the booty.  When the other miscreants follow him, they find themselves in a field littered with scarecrows that are a bit more lively and lethal than most.

Yes, it’s a bit of a stupid plot, but the scarecrows were sort of well realized.  They also seemed capable of some sort of mental and psychic manipulation, which I found rather surprising and creative. There were some suspenseful moments where I was actually pretty well drawn in. The performances were not stellar by any means, but I have seen worse. There was not a lot of explanation as to the origin of such forces, but I actually found the absence of that to be fine. The movie also starts in the middle of the getaway. The robbery is not seen onscreen. The actual kidnapping of the protagonists has already occurred.  The viewer is dropped right in the middle of the escape, which I thought was an interesting way to start the film that worked surprisingly well.

This is for people with a taste for macabre B horror films.  So, I think one can still have fun watching it with comfortably low expectations.  It does fit in well enough with the current Halloween season.  Not everyone is going to appreciate this thing, but my fellow B horror aficionados should get some amusement out of it. I certainly did.

“Green Light” is a 1937 medical drama directed by Frank Borzage. Errol Flynn is the lead in this one with Anita Louise and Walter Abel. The film is adapted from a novel by Lloyd C. Douglas.

Apparently, Flynn requested to star in a film where he was not sailing the high seas or engaged in some sword fight. He stars as a talented and well-liked surgeon who shoulders the blame when a colleague botches an operation which leads to the death of a generous and beloved patient.  Matters become more complicated when the daughter of the deceased patient arrives and is of course a beautiful blonde played by Anita Louise.

Flynn’s character, Dr. Newell Paige, is forced out of the hospital and decides to join a friend in Montana who is researching Rocky Mountain spotted fever.

The romance in the movie seems a bit unlikely.  I didn’t find the noble Dr. Paige to be all that interesting. It was kind of intriguing to see Errol Flynn in a somewhat unfamiliar role and setting.

I looked it up and saw that the movie actually did well at the box office and was pretty well received by the critics.  I didn’t find it to be that memorable.  It seemed to go longer than the actual running time of the movie at times.  It’s mildly interesting at times but not consistently so.

Doctor Who has just begun a new series with “The Woman Who Fell To Earth” written by the new showrunner, Chris Chibnall. Jodie Whittaker has started her era as the new Doctor.  I am one of those fans skeptical of the idea of changing the Doctor’s gender, however this could have gone worse.

There were some things done in Whittaker’s introductory episode that I had hoped to see. There was not that much attention to the Doctor’s change in gender. There were moments where the Doctor displayed her skill at improvisation and invention that was often present in the previous incarnations.  She managed to bring out some of the Doctor’s clumsiness and humor. The new Doctor also displayed the familiar reckless curiosity.  The Doctor having amnesia after a regeneration is not really new, but I was glad that she didn’t seem particularly concerned about her memory lapse when there was an alien threat to handle.  Her costume still looks pretty absurd, but I suppose I can get used to it.  After Colin Baker’s disastrous ensemble as the Sixth Doctor, I can handle Whittaker’s outfit.

There was a compelling scene where the Doctor tried to convey what regeneration was like to a couple of her new friends.  Whittaker delivered it well.  Some of the efforts to explain the basics of the series in the context of the story were not too clumsy.

The three companions may be interesting enough to keep me engaged as well.  Bradley Walsh as a middle-aged cancer survivor is an atypical companion.  It should be fun to see how he interacts with the new Doctor and his two younger companions who are whisked along in the Doctor’s journey.

There is a new alien, which is a bit of a Predator knock off.  I do appreciate efforts to bring in new adversaries and aliens in this newer series of Doctor Who.

I just read that this episode has a 100 % Rotten Tomatoes rating.  I am not sure I would rate it that high, but I was reassured that I may still find some enjoyment from this new era in my favorite show, even if I still disagree with the reasons of casting a woman as the Doctor.  So, I am still interested enough to see where the TARDIS goes next, assuming the Doctor can find her again. I don’t want the whole series to be about looking for the TARDIS, so I hope that turns up soon.

“Christine” is a novel from the world’s best known horror writer, Stephen King, which was first published in 1983.

A teen-ager becomes obsessed with a 1958 Plymouth Fury that starts off as quite the heap until Arnie Cunningham starts putting some work into it.

There are times where the story seems to drag just a bit, however it’s a pretty entertaining read.  King really delves into some complicated family dynamics at times that seem familiar in many ways but are still presented in a fresh manner.  Although the freshness may be due to most families not having to contend with a demonic car.

Roland D. LeBay is the owner who sales Christine to Arnie and is pretty foul from the beginning.  My problem with LeBay that he was just more disgusting than actually frightening even after his wretched spirit lingers around after his funeral.

The narrator through much of the story, Dennis Gilder, is fine. The middle section of the book is told in third person after Dennis ends up being hospitalized.  The girl at the center of the triangle, Leigh Cabot, seemed like a regular teen-aged girl even if she was depicted to be the gold standard of high school beauty queens.

I have said for years that King excels at describing how someone can slowly unravel at first before plummeting into utter madness. He does have a pretty unique style of prose.

If horror fans, particularly Stephen King readers, have somehow missed this one, I  do recommend that be rectified. It’s still worth the time in spite of some of my more critical observations.

Next up, William Monk is back patrolling the Thames of Victorian England in Anne Perry’s “An Echo of Murder”

“Venom” left me with a very mixed bag of impressions and thoughts.  It has its high points of cinematic entertainment, but it’s also rife with cracks in the storytelling. Venom is known best as one of Spider-Man’s toughest adversaries, however the film directed by Ruben Fleischer chooses to ignore many aspects of the comic book origin of this particular character.   It will likely do well at the box office, but it is still one of the weaker adaptation of a Marvel series.  This was released by Sony and is not really part of Marvel Cinematic Universe.

Starting off a bit with what works, Tom Hardy was well cast as reckless, hapless reporter Eddie Brock who ends up being the host of the alien symbiote known as Venom.  Hardy is a very interesting actor and manages to put in an engaging performance in spite of the writing missteps.  The action sequences were pretty good, although the CGI realization of Venom could have been a little better.  I actually didn’t find the appearance of Venom to be all that far off, although there was a little lack of authenticity that was a little distracting.  I could probably forgive that since Venom is likely still a tricky character to realize perfectly onscreen given the variety of abilities and his unusual and grotesque appearance.

Riz Ahmed is fine as the dangerous, obsessive Carlton Drake, the scientist working on controlling the alien symbiotes that have come into his possession.  There was not much that was not really seen before, although Drake could often come off as rather ingratiating and a it creepy at once.  I actually don’t know much about the comic book version of this character, so I am not sure how faithful he was to the original depiction.

Michelle Williams also did well as Brock’s love interest, Anne Weying. I don’t think she had much chemistry with Hardy though.  It is not due to any lack of effort or ability on her part, but I didn’t find that dynamic all that interesting.  Anne is actually in the comic book series, but I know very little about her.

The dialogue between Brock and Venom really developed a bit too quickly to feel authentic, which is a strange thing to say about a comic book movie.  I think Venom could have been a bit wittier.  Actually, his beginnings deviate the most from the comic books.

Overall, I just left feeling mildly entertained but not all that enthralled with the idea of a sequel being in the works.  If there was a sequel, I would likely still be curious enough to be see it, but I am not yearning to have another Venom film…unless Spider-Man is involved.

“The Thief Who Stole Time” is a Doctor Who audio play written by Marc Platt and continues the story started in “The Skin of the Sleek”.  Tom Baker and Lalla Ward are the leads in the particular episode released by the prolific Big Finish Productions.

It picks up when Romana has been betrayed by a fellow Time Lady known as Sartia and was left sinking in the rather unusually gelatinous ocean of the planet Funderell.  A religion is centered around eel-like creatures who lurk below the surface and one had been killed which causes all manner of turmoil for the Doctor and Romana.

This story has some interesting ideas, however the descriptions conveyed in the dialogue are sometimes hard to visualize. Baker and Ward continue to exhibit their usual dynamic chemistry, which is amusing considering their history.  I am trying to figure out if they actually perform in the studio together of it they are edited as if they were in post productions.  It’s still great to have new adventures with this pairing regardless.  Tom Baker still seems to have quite the ball being back in the role, and I can almost forget he is well into his eighties at times.

Sartia, played by Joannah Tincey, is an intriguing nemesis who has more hostility toward Romana than the Doctor. I was pleased that the Doctor wasn’t sidelined in any way even though the main thrust of the story was about Romana’s history. It has been hinted that audiences won’t hear the last of Sartia, and I am good with that.  Sartia isn’t really that different from some of the other renegade Tome Lords peppered throughout Doctor Who, but I do like the idea that she has more animosity toward Romana, which does bring in a rather fresh aspect.

The other members of the guest case are fine.  Not everything in this story was terribly riveting, however it was enjoyable enough.  Of course, I am excited that there are new stories with the incomparable Tom Baker, so I may not be completely objective.

“Red Planets” is a Doctor Who audio play from Big Finish Productions.  Una McCormack is the author of this particular episode starring Sylvester McCoy alongside Bonnie Langford and Sophie Aldred.

The Doctor and his companions, Mel and Ace, find a timeline that should not exist where the United Kingdom is under Russian control, and a mission to Mars seems to be at the center of the trouble.

This story seems to start with the Doctor and friends in the middle of the problem with two different time periods.  Ace is allied with a wounded British spy in 1961 while the Doctor and Mel investigate matters in London 2017.

I am not sure this one works as well on audio.  Seventh Doctor adventures tend to get more convoluted than usual.  But alternate timeline stories tend to get like that.  I had some trouble getting interested at first, but it got more compelling as the story unfolded.

The main cast continues to perform well together although Ace was largely separated from the other two.  This is another story where the performances help with forgiving the weaknesses of the writing.

There was a bit of the spy caper mixed into the usual science fiction.  I think I may like this one a little better once I get around to listening to it again.  It may not be a bad story if I can concentrate on it better on a subsequent listen.

Doctor Who will start airing its eleventh series on October 6. Well, it’s the eleventh series since its 2005 return to BBC.  I have some thoughts and concerns about the latest changes. Doctor Who isn’t new to significant changes, but casting a woman in a role that has been played by a man since 1963 may have more consequences than producers realize. Or it may not. It’s hard to say.

Jodie Whittaker is the actress who has to convince the old guard of fans who are skeptical of the casting that this is not going to lead to its second full cancellation.

Doctor Who is a program I have followed avidly and probably too obsessively for years. I started with the Fourth Doctor, played by Tom Baker, when it was airing on the Houston PBS affiliate in the 1980’s.  I have since collected the novels, a few comic books, and a vast amount of audio dramas that have been produced in the past twenty years.  There are probably more noble pursuits in life, but I have fun with this one.

One of the arguments for this gender alteration for the Doctor was that the show was always about change.  It’s about more than that.  The fans don’t generally want to see the familiar police box shape of the TARDIS change.  Doctor Who was more about variety than massive change.  Also, the younger fans may not know that the practice of changing the lead actor and calling it regeneration in the show really started out of a sense of necessity when William Hartnell had gotten too ill to continue with the role beyond the first three years.  It was an ingenious thought to have a character whose origins were unknown but clearly extraterrestrial be able to change his form if he were severely injured or otherwise near death.  Of course, the practice continued for over two decades in the program’s original run.

Between the original run, one television movie in 1996, and the current version of the series, there have been twelve men who played the Doctor.  Now, casting a woman may work out, but I do think there are some pitfalls that current showrunner, Chris Chibnall, may want to consider.

I will go ahead and admit that casting a woman in this role is far from my favorite decision for my favorite program.  Despite that, I will continue to watch the show and try to assess Whittaker’s performance as fairly as I can.  I still hope that the show is able to survive and with elements that I have managed to love throughout the years I have been engaged.  I was also put off by some of rationale that went along with the casting decision. The thought was that the show needed a major change to freshen it up.  The casting of any new actor would be enough to freshen it up.  I enjoyed the recent Doctors in the form of Peter Capaldi, Matt Smith, and David Tennant in recent years, but  I think some opportunities were squandered during those years when the writers kept having the Doctor in these overly contemplative and doubtful moods.  In the classic episodes, the focus was more on the adventure than the relationships and aftermath of traveling through time and space with the Doctor. I used to think that the show missed some important opportunities to tug the heartstrings a bit, but now I think the writers in the current version are trying too hard for that.  Maybe I am just never going to be satisfied, but as much as I love the show, it is still just a science fiction/fantasy show. It sometimes has important messages that resonate, but I liked it because the idea and presentation of a hero such as the Doctor was so unusual.  I loved the flippancy he would display when walking into a threatening alien menace.  I loved the confidence he had in his own genius, even if the science was totally made up and incomprehensible at times. I loved the variety in locales and stories.  The show was sometimes able to touch on various genres, particularly in the novels and audio dramas. I loved it.

I do think it is possible that the show can survive this latest casting maneuver. A recent clip of the first episode with Whittaker seemed a little reassuring.  The change can be explained in the narrative of the show very easily.  I hope Chibnall can resist some tendencies I suspect are there to over-indulge the feminist opportunities.

I think there needs to be a very definite effort to have Whittaker show more of the Doctor’s familiar traits.  I want this new Doctor to have the same flippancy and ingenuity as seen before.  She needs to be eccentric and funny without trying to be too outlandish. I think it would be neat to see her Doctor bring back more of the tinkerer that has been seen in previous incarnations. I also want the change in gender to be addressed as minimally as possible. It can’t be ignored entirely. I get that. Actually much of what I want in this new Doctor would be m preference even if another man had been cast.

I still don’t think casting a woman was all that necessary or really even a great idea.  I do hope that I am wrong, and the show somehow survives.  I hope I still find aspects to enjoy. I am not a fan of all of the directions took in the past, but I hung on and found some pleasure in even those periods.  I don’t think the Third Doctor should have been exiled and grounded on Earth, but I still love Jon Pertwee during his time in the role. I can hopefully be open minded enough to enjoy this new era regardless of my doubts.

I will be reviewing the episodes as this new series progresses…unless the show god in a direction that will finally shake my loyalty.  In that case, I still have the novels and audio dramas with the previous male Doctors.