“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.

“Night School” is the latest comedy starring Kevin Hart with his old pal, Tiffany Haddish, along for the ride.  Malcom D. Lee directed this film in which Hart shares writing credit card.  It’s another typical fil where Kevin Hart seems to excel at being Kevin Hart.  He is pretty funny in this one for the most part, but audiences have seen this type of character from him many, many times before.  Tiffany Haddish also holds her own as the somewhat jaded but dedicated teacher. Her big screen credits are not quite as stout as Hart’s, but her performance does not seem to be a stretch either.  She is basically excellent at being Tiffany Haddish, which isn’t too bad. Both of the leads do have their talent and charm, but it would be interesting to see them do something different.

The rather pleasant surprise was that the cast of classmates actually had their moments where they weren’t overwhelmed by Hart’s somewhat bombastic performance. Rob Riggle was pretty good, but the rather surprisingly hysterical moments were from Mary Lynn Rajskub.  Her role of over-worked, under-educated homemaker, Teresa, was a bit of a comedic dark horse.  Of course, the whole business of her being easily overlooked made some of her scenes even that more amusing.

This really isn’t a masterpiece of cinematic comedy, but I thought it was reasonably entertaining, even if not every joke or moment landed all that solidly.

“The Sisters Brothers” is a western directed by Jacques Audiard and stars Joaquin Phoenix, John C. Reilly, and Jake Gyllenhaal.  It is one of the better ones in the genre in recent years.  It is gritty and violent but also has some complicated characters and dynamics at times.

Eli and Charlie Sisters are brothers who work as hired assassins in the Pacific Northwest in 1851.  They are sent by a mysterious crime lord known as the Commodore to hunt down a prospector who is a talented enough chemist to concoct a formula that can reveal the presence of gold in the riverbeds.

There are times that the pacing seems strangely slow for a western. When violence does erupt, it is brutally realistic for the most part. The film has plenty of beautiful scenery throughout which seems a bit ironic considering the gruesome body count often left in the wake of the Sisters Brothers.

This is a talented cast, but Reilly really stands out as Eli Sisters, a man capable of effective violence when the situation calls for it but one who does not relish it in the manner of Phoenix’s Charlie.  Reilly has some compelling and at times moving scenes such as when he opens up to Hermann Kermit Warm, the disarming chemist played by Riz Ahmed and tells of the tragic childhood that precipitated the violent career path of the Sisters Brothers.

There are times when the film appears predictable, but it manages to throw in some unexpected twists.  There are some moments that require a bit of a patience before the action resumes, but this is as much a character study mixed into the traditional western trappings.

All of the performances were solid, and I was impressed that Rutger Hauer appears as the Commodore, although those appearances are very limited. The Commodore seems more of a mostly unseen menace than an actual person. Although it would have been interesting to actually see Hauer say some lines and interact with the other cast members, his sort of cameo presence works too.

I may need to see this movie again to see some of the other more subtle aspects and nuances of the film, but I certainly hope this gains some more significant viewings and appreciation.

Wally Lamb’s “She’s Come Undone” isn’t the usual sort of novel I would select, however I just joined a book club. It seems just like the kind of novel a book club would go for.

It is described as a coming of age tale told from the perspective of Dolores Price, who starts off as a young girl in 1956. Her parents’ marriage starts to unravel rather dramatically. The novel is replete with all kinds of classic personal traumas, including divorce, bullying,  sexual abuse, mental illness, sudden death, and all sorts of various unpleasantness.

Lamb is a pretty talented writer. He seems to have either done research or has been exposed to those who have faced some terrible trials.  I have a day job where I have some exposure to the consequences of some of these upheavals.

There are moments when Dolores demonstrates some inspirational tenacity.  Lamb infuses her with a rather biting wit that helps the reader not tumble into complete despair over her various plights.

There are times when the novel just seems to go a little longer than necessary. It’s still an interesting journey for the most part, and I think most readers will want to see this one through to the end.

On September 25, 2018, Bill Cosby was sentenced to 3 to 10 years in prison by a judge in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania for sexual assault.  He apparently drugged and raped a young basketball coordinator of Temple University back in 2004.  He was convicted after a second trial was conducted in April of this year.

Andrea Constand was one of about 60 women who accused Cosby of sexual abuse. She seems to be the only one likely to see her abuser receive the criminal conviction.

I have to admit that I rather liked Cosby’s act for the most part.  I enjoyed “The Cosby Show” generally. Fortunately, I wasn’t a rabid die-hard fan, but I respected his talent and his messages. I did enjoy his live stand-up performance at West Texas A&M once.  This particular fall from grace won’t likely plague my conscience very  much, but he was an important part of American entertainment for a very long time.

I liked Cosby well enough to want to believe in his innocence when the allegations first started coming out in more detail after fellow comedian Hannibal Buress referenced the misdeeds in a stand-up comedy routine in 2014.  Unfortunately, my hopes were disintegrating as more women came forward, and then I heard about the deposition that was taken in 2005 where Cosby admitted to the use of Quaaludes as a means of engaging in what he called casual sex.  This was during a civil suit that had been filed by Constand around 2005.

Although I applaud the courage it took for these women to come forward and for the prosecutors to pull the case together to finally get a conviction that really seems to have been deserved, I am still saddened by the wreckage of an accomplished career all because Cosby never bothered to reign in his darker impulses.  It appears he never tried. He just ended up likely adding to the cynicism and despair that many people try to escape from through entertainment and comedy. Cosby had some good solid messages and ideas regarding personal responsibility as well. All of that means nothing  now.  The messages themselves may still carry some validity, but this particular messenger is damaged goods, which is putting it lightly.

Victims of sexual abuse getting justice in court should be celebrated.  I think Constand does deserve this victory. Even though I believe Cosby deserving of his downfall, I still can’t quite shake the sadness that is blended into that belief.

I also want to applaud the police and prosecutors in the State of Pennsylvania for finding enough probable cause to secure an indictment and ultimate conviction, which was probably not that easy to pull off since so much time had passed since the crime was committed.  Even if I am not exactly jumping for joy over this outcome for Cosby, neither am I critical of it.  Cosby needed to be held accountable.

 

“The House With A Clock In Its Walls” stars Jack Black, Cate Blanchett, and Kyle MacLachlan and is based on a children’s novel by John Bellairs. Director Eli Roth presents a fairly charming film but probably not one I will remember for very long.

A young orphan is taken in by a very eccentric uncle who means well but has a few secrets.  He has a mysterious friendship with his equally strange yet charming neighbor who has quite the fondness for purple.  Lewis Barnavelt, played by Owen Vaccaro, is the typical shy oddball who seems to really struggle with fitting in with fellow students even without the grief of his parents’ recent death.  He finds that his uncle is in possession of a temperamental, magical house that possesses its own secrets.

Black and Blanchett are entertaining enough as the playfully bickering neighbors and friends.  Vaccaro holds his own with a solid enough performance.

The visual effects were fine. There were moments of real imagination and creativity with various menacing, bizarre objects bedeviling the protagonists.  The costumes were pretty eye-catching.

Blanchett still managed to look quite attractive in spite of the peculiarity of her appearance in this film.  She also had some very effective scenes when she had to act as the conscience of Black’s Uncle Jonathan.

The story takes place in 1955, and I thought the period was captured well enough.  Some of it appeared to be a little exaggerated at times, but this was based on a children’s story, so I think I could forgive that easily enough.

MacLachlan played his part well enough as the evil wizard known as Isaac Izard.  His role just seemed to be fairly cliché, but he handled it fine.  Renee Elise Goldsberry played his wife, Selena.  Once again, the performances were fine but nothing all that engaging between the two of them.  They were outshined by Black and Blanchett as far as entertaining banter and chemistry.

There were times that coherence seemed to falter. There was of course one rule of the house that young Lewis just had to break, which seemed a bit predictable.

There was not anything to really hate about this film, but there was little that really seems likely to stay with me.  It was a reasonably enjoyable film in spite of some of the silliness peppered throughout.