Category: Review

Firestarter (2022)

  By

★★★
“The fire-devil is back!”

I must admit: While I always found the premise for Stephen King’s 1980 novel Firestarter interesting, I never read the book. 500 small-printed pages are just too much for me. The story itself shares some of its DNA with Carrie, with the difference that this here is about a younger child, not an adolescent, and instead of telekinesis the girl knows pyrokinesis, meaning she can create fire from nowhere and control it. It could be argued that King was just kind of re-using ideas from Carrie, making less of an effort to create something original as he did with other material. Opinions on the story seem to be split. Some think it’s a great novel, of the usual King quality; others think it’s a typical work from the time when King was writing as if he were on the run, and striking while the iron was hot (honestly, I don’t really see he has slowed down so much over the years).

Anyway, the novel became a 1984 movie, with all the qualities and flaws a Stephen King adaptation had in the 80s, featuring then-child star Drew Barrymore (gosh, I just realize while I’m typing that she is as old as I am!) a considerable ensemble of actors, a soundtrack by Tangerine Dream and – for its time – impressive pyro special effects. The film’s reception was lukewarm but it went on to become a success on VHS. In Germany, the title translates as “The Firedevil”, which in German means somebody who likes to play with fire. A sequel, albeit unrelated in story and without any King input, came out as as a TV miniseries in 2002 to similarly questionable results as far as fan opinions go. The main character was still Charlie, but now all grown-up. Strangely, the villain of the original piece was still alive there which made zero sense if you witnessed his demise at the end of the movie.

So here is the 2022 version, produced by Blumhouse, a studio with a very good reputation for first-class horror movies today, and also gave us great non-genre movies like Whiplash. Martha de Laurentiis, co-producing wife of the late Dino de Laurentiis (involved in a number of King adaptations in the 80s) has a producer’s credit, although she died last year at cancer. Akiva Goldsman who was chosen to direct the movie before being replaced, also got a producing credit, which doesn’t necessarily mean much nowadays.

The new Firestarter does its best not to just repeat the story beats of the 1984 movie, though by doing so is less close to the original King novel. The beginning of the movie shows young girl Charlie (Armstrong) in school being bullied by one of those ugly red-haired boys we all know from 1970s movies (nasty then, nasty now – talk about discrimination against red-haired children!). It reminded me quite a bit of Carrie, though it’s just a few scenes and serves little more purpose than to illustrate Charlie’s problems in general.

Her parents (Efron – suddenly grown up; wasn’t he just a boy yesterday? – and Lemmon) have been on the run for a long time: After being involved in an experiment that gave them paranormal powers,the secret government organisation that conducted these experiments, “The Shop”, want their child. Therefore – and a bonus point to the screenwriter for taking modern communication and tracking opportunities into account – they have been staying away from the Internet and mobile phones. I was therefore surprised when Charlie in a key scene of the movie suddenly came up with one.

These forces are on the track of the family again, after an outbreak of fire in school and Charlie burns the arms of her mother in a fit of rage. It’s funny to compare the latter scene in old and new movies. Nothing much worth mentioning happened to the mother in the original, but a great fuss was made about it. Here, she has what feel like at least second-degree burns, and the parents behave as if it were nothing in front of Charlie. Let’s go have some ice-cream! What kind of message is being sent to young parents, folks?

The Shop is now under the management of Captain Hollister (Gloria Reuben), who send apparently disgraced operative John Rainbird (Greyeyes) to get Charlie back. She is seen by Hollister as having great potential, though original leader of the experiment, Doctor Wanless (Kurtwood Smith in a cameo), fears an unmeasurable threat from the girl’s potential when she comes into full control of her power. Charlie’s mom resists Rainbird and dies in the confrontation, causing father and daughter to go on the run, where Dad’s ability to influence people telepathically comes in handy.

They find sanctuary with recluse Manders (John Beasley), only to be discovered by the police and Rainbird shortly after. While Charlie gets away, her father is caught and is brought back to the lab. After training to control her powers in the woods, a scene that feels two minutes long, Charlie comes to free her Dad. Although “The Shop” does its best to get her under control, the girl prevails, burning all those who threaten her.

Firestarter is a strange beast with a difficult task: Retaining the core of the original story but not being to close too the orignal movie. Paying tribute to current political correctness, yet not changing the original material too much. For most of the time, they do fine, I’d say. Some changes did catch my eye: the conflict between the parents wasn’t there, as far as I remember, in the original movie. The mother wants Charlene to train so she can control her powers, the father would rather she suppress them, for who knows what may come out of them being released? In contrast, the original spent more time with Dad and daughter in the lab, the evil Rainbird slowly gaining Charlie’s confidence in order to kill her when appropriate. It went more for slow menacing tension – also the approach of King’s novel – while this plays more as a “fugitives-on-the-run” scenario.

But the biggest change is the John Rainbird. In the original, he was played by elderly over-weight “evil uncle” George C. Scott. In no circumstance would he ever have been considered a Native American. Here, he is played by Canadian and Cree actor Michael Greyeyes, though Rainbird in the books was Cherokee. Perhaps because Hollywood thinks it can’t allow villains to be an ethnic minority, the character is slightly changed: Rainbird works for the organisation, because it is suggested they are too powerful. He himself was betrayed by them, and seems to have been part of the experiment, gaining certain supernatural powers. Here, Rainbird helps Charlie, ready to accept his death. Strangely, she spares his life and while the building behind her burns, takes his hand and they walk away. Make out of that ending what you want: it’s definitely not King’s.

It seems a lot of critics disliked the new movie. As a whole I can’t condemn taking a different approach to the story. I’m not even sure if I would call the new movie “woke”, though it definitely has woke moments. Director Keith Thomas, does fine, I think. The movie is atmospheric, has more focus on the parents and their differences over how to raise their daughter, and there is some genuine tension, e. g. when Rainbird confronts Charlie’s mother. What really astonished me is the musci by John Carpenter and his son Cody. Yes, that Carpenter. I don’t know how they got him to do the music: he directed the King adaptation Christine in the 80s and was the original choice for that Firestarter, so that may have something to do with it.

What’s my judgement? The new movie isn’t bad. Acting-wise I’d even say it’s better; I especially prefer Michael Greyeyes’s performance to the ham-fisted approach of Scott. But if I had to chose… I’d stick with the original. That had the “oh, she is so cute” Barrymore factor and a really, really impressive cast, which this movie only can dream of. The pyro FX party at the end is much more impressive than the toned-down finale here. There is also the “zeitgeist factor” to consider. In 1984 you could still accept and be fascinated by the idea of a girl who can create and control fire. In 2022, with Pyro, Dark Phoenix or Sunspot doing similar or more impressive things, Charlie’s powers just aren’t as fascinating as they used to be.

Dir: Keith Thomas
Star: Zac Efron, Ryan Kiera Armstrong, Sydney Lemmon, Michael Greyeyes

Firestarter (1984)

  By

★★½
“I’m the trouble starter, punkin’ instigator…”

It’s somewhat ironic that John Carpenter was originally supposed to direct this. However, after The Thing tanked at the box-office, he was let go from the project, and replaced by the more commercially “safe” Lester. The irony being that The Thing is now regarded (rightfully) as one of the greatest scifi/horror films of all time, while this is… not. It’s very much a mid-tier Stephen King adaptation, far less well remembered than the similarly themed The Dead Zone, from around the same time. I can understand why: it’s lumbering when it needs to be taut, needlessly coming in a little shy of two hours, and only comes to life at the end, when a pissed-off Drew gets enough XP to learn her Level 3 Fireball spell.

She plays Charlie McGee, daughter of Andrew (Keith) and Vicky (Heather Locklear), who met during a fringe scientific experiment, carried out by a dodgy arm of the government. Dosed with a substance called Lot 6, she can read minds, and he can compel people to act in accordance with his will. Charlie, meanwhile… Oh, see the title. Or the poster. Figure it out for yourself. Though the stiff breeze which springs up out of nowhere, each time she furrows her little brow and gets toasty, is a nice touch. Naturally, the government under Captain Hollister (Sheen) are very keen to get their hands on her, with psycho Indian hitman John Rainbird (Scott) eventually sent out to bring in Charlie. 

There’s quite a lot here which has not stood the test of time, and/or wasn’t very good to begin with. Top of the list is likely Keith’s performance, which feels like a poorly conceived effort to channel Patrick Swayze. Scott is creepy, for all the wrong reasons. Rainbird’s relationship with Charlie feels inappropriate from a 2020’s angle, and few people are likely less appropriate to play a native American than Gen. Patton. The film’s main strength is Barrymore, who alternates between adorability and frankly being damn scary. Every other minute, you want to hug her… while wrapped safely in a fireproof suit. At the age of eight, I guess she was still a couple of years from going into rehab.

While the structure largely mirrors the book, doing so probably doesn’t help, beginning when Charlie and her father are already on the run. This then requires a series of clunky flashbacks to get us caught up, and there is too much sitting around the lab, getting father and daughter to demonstrate their talents. Charlie probably isn’t the only one to issue a derisive snort when she is presented with a pile of wood chips. When things do eventually get going though, this is deliciously well-done (in the steak sense, at least), a throwback to the days in Hollywood when wanting to blow stuff up, required actually blowing stuff up. I would nod in acceptance if you told me the finale was responsible for starting off global warming. It just doesn’t quite make up for the 105 minutes which preceded it.

Dir: Mark L. Lester
Star: David Keith, Drew Barrymore, George C. Scott, Martin Sheen
A version of this review previously appeared on Film Blitz

Firestarter, by Stephen King

  By

Literary rating: ★★★½
Kick-butt quotient: ☆☆

Having watched both versions of the film, I followed up by reading the book on which they were based. Despite my general fondness for horror, I haven’t read very much Stephen King: this is only the second novel of his, after Salem’s Lot. First thought: at 576 pages in the mass paperback edition, it’s quite a door-stopper, and you can see the problems in adapting a work of that size into a movie. Inevitably, a lot of the detail and nuance is going to be excised. There’s no doubt, the 1984 version is more faithful; the 2022 adaptation takes the basic concept of a young girl with pyrokinetic powers, on the run from the government with her father, and does its own thing, more or less.

How you feel about those different approaches, probably depends on how you feel about the original book. Despite the length, it wasn’t a chore; I was typically reading 25-30 minutes a night, and never felt like it was a burden. King had a relatively straightforward style, that’s generally easy to read. The novel does, like the 1984 film, move back and forth in the time-line. It begins with Charlie and her dad trying to escape the experimental government program which spawned them, only later filling in how they got to this point – both the events of that program, and the subsequent surveillance, leading to the death of her mother. This, to me, worked better on the page than the screen, where it ended up becoming too convoluted.

You get a good deal more background on “The Shop”, the murky federal group behind everything, and its employees. In particular, a good portion is told from the perspective of near-insane operative, John Rainbird, Here, he’s very badly disfigured, the result of a friendly-fire incident in the Vietnam War, which seems to have helped push him over the edge. His madness is considerably more apparent in the book, along with the dubious nature of his psychological attachment to – almost dependence on – Charlie. The novel also delves deeper into Charlies’ internal struggle for self-control, fighting to keep hold of her talent, rather than letting it rule her.

While both film versions end with her fiery escape from the shop, albeit in radically different ways, the book has a fairly lengthy coda. [spoilers follow]. This covers Charlie’s return to the Manders farm, where she finds sanctuary once more. Inevitably, however, word seeps out and the Shop pay a visit, only to find their target already left. The novel finishes with Charlie arriving at the offices of Rolling Stone magazine, ready to tell her story. From a 2022 viewpoint, this had not aged well, with that publication now a de facto mouthpiece for the establishment, with as much counter-culture credibility as Teen Vogue or Buzzfeed. However, this remains an entertaining read, and if such a talent ever existed, you sense the events it depicts are quite plausibly how things could go down. Here’s hoping we never find out.

Author: Stephen King
Publisher: Pocket Books, available through Amazon, both as a paperback and an e-book
Standalone novel.

Seventh Son

  By

★★★
“Son of a witch…”

Despite generally terrible reviews, this is definitely not, by any means, a terrible movie. It is, admittedly, a fairly generic sword-and-sorcery flick, in which a hero must rise from a common background to save the world from a terrible magical threat. But it looks spiffy – the hundred million dollar budget is on the screen. If the central performance has its issues, there’s enough around the fringes to make both for an adequately entertaining experience, and also merit the existence of a review here. In particular, the main antagonist is the evil witch Mother Malkin (Moore). She escapes from the prison to which she had been confined years ago by Gregory (Bridges), now the last survivor of his order of witch-hunters.

Malkin seeks revenge, but only succeeds in killing Gregory’s apprentice, Jon Snow [okay, it’s just Kit Harrington, but this works well enough as a Game of Thrones side-quest]. With just a few days before Malkin’s powers are fully unlocked, he needs a replacement, stat. That is pig farmer’s son, Tom Ward (Barnes), whose lineage provides him with the necessary talents to help fight Mother Malkin. Maybe… Things are, naturally, complicated on the fringes, by Tom’s growing relationship with half-witch Alice (Vikander), for she is also Malkin’s niece, and if uncertain loyalties. On the other hand, Tom owns the Umbran Stone, which his mother – at the time an acolyte of Mother Malkin – had stolen from her mistress, and which multiplies the abilities of any witch who possesses it.

In other words, a smorgasbord of Young Adult fantasy tropes, and there are a few plot-holes, e.g. why doesn’t Malkin just hole up for a few days to acquire her full powers? However, the execution of things here has some positives, in particular the energetic commitment of both Moore and Bridges [It’s a Big Lebowski reunion: I leave it to you to write your own joke there]. The former delivers a no-holds barred approach, getting good support from Antje Traue as Malkin’s sister, Bony Lizzie.  The witches depicted here are certainly independent, strong women. They’re just not very nice. Meanwhile, Gregory has a clear zero-tolerance policy for witches, something which brings him into conflict with Tom, and Bridges’s mumbling feels a bit reminiscent of his performance in True Grit. Once you get used to that, it’s a far bit of fun to watch. 

I think Bodrov’s lack of Hollywood experience may have been the main issue. While Bridges and Moore are experienced enough not to need much direction, the same isn’t true of Barnes, despite his previous fantasy role as Prince Caspian. Tom is simply bland and uninteresting. If the movie had concentrated on Gregory and Malkin, I’d probably have liked it a lot more. As is, whenever the hero is on-screen, I tended to find myself admiring the pretty backdrops and production design instead. Though I’ve not read the book by Joseph Delaney on which this was based, we did review the later series entry, I am Grimalkin. Done properly, I’d certainly not mind seeing that made into a film. However, the tepid response to this killed any hopes for a franchise: Grimalkin will likely have to remain a creature of my imagination.

Dir: Sergei Bodrov
Star: Ben Barnes, Jeff Bridges, Alicia Vikander, Julianne Moore

Witch Hunt

  By

★★★
“Not-so sunny spells.”

This is set in the everyday world – but with one major tweak. Witchcraft exists, and has been outlawed in the United States by the 11th amendment. Now, government agents from the BWI seek out witches, using tried and true methods from the middle ages (the “sink test” is exactly what it sounds like), and punish those found or suspected to be practicing witchcraft. But those opposed to this have set up an “underground railroad” to smuggle the targets over the boarder to Mexico. Teenage girl Claire (Adlon) is part of one such family, courtesy of her mom Martha (Elizabeth Mitchell); Dad is out of the picture. Claire is rather ambivalent about their activism, since she just wants to fit in at school. But the arrival of Fiona (Cowen) and her little sister, siblings whose mother was burned at the stake, forces Claire out of her professed neutrality,. Especially as the investigation of the unrelenting BWI Agent Hawthorne (Camargo) gets closer to home.

This was on wobbly territory in the first half, with a few storyline flaws. Why are witches outlawed? Was there some 9/11-like incident to trigger the crackdown? And why has the government built a wall to keep them in? If they want to leave, surely that’s a victory for everyone? I was also amused that, at least initially, it appears all witches are redheads. Because, as we all know, gingers have no souls. :) There was also a scene in which schoolgirls Claire and Fiona hang out in a bar: hey, this society may hate witches, but they’re clearly more relaxed about teenage drinking. However, that scene was also where the film suddenly “clicked”, as they discussed whether the ending of Thelma & Louise had been censored because they were witches. For whatever reason, thereafter I felt in tune with what the film was trying to do. The film may have been more than a little clunky with its social metaphors, yet it was still an interesting universe to depict.

This seems to ramp up markedly after Hawthorne shows up, putting an all-too human face on the hatred, and providing a good antagonist – something largely absent in the early states. There’s a very politeness to him which makes his actions all the more menacing – a little like Hans Landa in Inglourious Basterds. The updating of old-time mythology surrounding witches also works very well: the modern version of the sink test involves the school swimming pool and, in a nod to the “kinder, gentler” era, scuba apparatus. Though as it turns out, this isn’t infallible: albeit without consequence or impact. All told, there are plenty of interesting ideas here: however, the movie falls short of merging them into an effective whole. If the generally decent performances do help paper over some cracks, there are enough still apparent, and the end result is actually a little infuriating. I suspect a moderately near-miss like this has a greater sense of unfulfilled potential than a complete disaster.

Dir: Elle Callahan
Star: Gideon Adlon, Abigail Cowen, Elizabeth Mitchell, Christian Camargo

Agent Kelly

  By

★★★
“Not your typical assassin.”

Seeing this described as “an experimental thriller,” set my alarm bells ringing. I’ve seen enough “experimental” film in my time, to realize it’s typically a code-word meaning “incoherent rubbish.” The above rating is thus partially a reflection of my relief that this did not fall into that category. You still, very definitely, have to manage your expectations here. If you go in expecting a slick, Jason Bourne style adventure, you will be sorely disappointed. For this is a no-budget entity, largely guerilla filmed by a one-man crew, and with a lead actress who has no real experience. It has already significantly surpassed all my expectations, simply through not being a total disaster.

It’s the story of Kelly (Spence), a 50-year-old assassin, with a particular fondness for the use of poison, who has gone rogue after her protege, Mia (Mills) is tortured and killed by… Rivals? Associates? Like a fair bit here, the details are vague. It seems safe to say, others in the same line of work. Driven by an unprofessional urge for revenge, Kelly has already killed one of those responsible, and is now on the run from the remaining three, with her only ally a voice on the other end of the phone, Ed (Bergtold), who is… Her boss? Partner? Again: vagueness. She high-tails it to hide out in the South of Spain, where she has to fend off the remaining hunters, making them become the hunted.

Initially, I confused this with Assassin’s Target, the other “Hitwoman in Spain with a fondness for poison” movie. Really: what are the odds? This is sparser, yet perhaps more effective. It certainly puts over the utter loneliness of Kelly’s life: there’s not a single face-to-face conversation in the film, everything being told in phone-calls and voice-over. [This may be to help avoid audio issues, the frequent bane of low-budget movies, as much as a stylistic choice!] In lieu of human interaction, there is a lot of footage of her riding buses, walking the streets, sipping drinks, etc. The action is definitely at the lower level; a few foot chases in those same streets or on the beach, and one brief hand-to-hand fight. That’s yer lot.

As noted, there’s a lot which is never explained, such as how Kelly suddenly finds herself in the middle of an apparent plot to blow up a Spanish bank, how the hunters track her down, or she tracks them [she calls one up, and is even explicitly asked, “How did you get this number?”] Normally, I’d find this kind of thing an irritating indication of lazy writing, yet for some reason it did not annoy me here, fitting the murky world for which the makers seem to be aiming, largely successfully. Spence, who also wrote the script, is not a glamorous female assassin either, being on the edge of menopause and with a drinking problem: credit due there. Even an ending definitely falling into the noncommittal camp seemed appropriate to what had gone before. While clearly rough around the edges, there was enough novel here to keep me watching – much to my surprise, I will admit.

Dir: James Smith
Star: Caroline Spence, Ed Bergtold, Chris Sanders, Mia Mills

Dune Drifter

  By

★★
“Any similarities are purely coincidental. “

This is likely an admirable effort in terms of its budget. The IMDb estimates it costs $100,000 and it looks like Price squeezed every cent – or, since it’s British, penny – out of that. To give you some idea, also per the IMDb, “Sections of the film were shot during the Covid-19 United Kingdom lockdown with just the occupants of the director’s flat. The director’s girlfriend doubled for any actors and WhatsApp voice notes from cast members were used for any extra lines of dialogue.” This is the kind of thing that can only be respected. Which is why I feel a little bad about having to give this an underwhelming review, because… truth be told, it’s kinda boring. 

It takes place in a future where Earth is at war with an alien race, the Drekk. A platoon of two-man fighter craft are on their way to the planet of Erebus. However, they emerge from hyperspace into the middle of a battle. The ship, crewed by Yaren (Aitkens) and Adler (Sparrow), is damaged and forced to crash land on the planet’s surface. Yaren is badly hurt in the process, and to make matters worse, they are not the only craft which had to make an impromptu descent. There are a number of Drekk present in the area as well, posing an additional problem as Adler tries to attract help and, when that fails, locate the necessary parts to repair her ship and let it take off for home.

This sounds rather more interesting than the reality, which involves a lot of Adler wandering around, talking to herself. She occasionally encounters Drekk – though never more than one, and I’ve a strong suspicion they were all the same actor (Dwyer-Thomas). They’re not particularly alien either, that notion hardly enhanced by the Drekk sporting what look uncannily like army surplus gas-masks. The most effectively unearthly element may be Erebus, whose part is played very impressively by the black rock landscapes of Iceland, where the film spent a week shooting. But I think things take too long to land on the surface. There’s an excessive amount of chit-chat between the ships on the way to their destination, none of which is relevant to the meat of the story. 

Despite its setting on an alien planet, the title isn’t an attempt at a Dune knockoff, unlike the previously reviewed Planet Dune. Indeed, Price regrets using the name, precisely for that reason. Other moments provoke some eye-rolling: the Drekk exhibit stormtrooper like accuracy, while it’s nice to know that future spaceships appear to run on Linux circa 2012, and can use spare parts from craft belonging to alien races. Lacking any sense of escalation, the story doesn’t so much reach a climax as just end. While Sparrow portrays the heroine with a no-nonsense approach, prepared to do whatever is necessary to survive, a good attitude can only take a movie so far. The budget here is less an issue than the script.

Dir: Marc Price
Star: Phoebe Sparrow, Daisy Aitkens, Simon Dwyer-Thomas, Alistair Kirton

Juana la Cubana

  By

★★★
“Showgirl by night, armed revolutionary by day.”

A long time ago – 17 years or thereabouts! – we reviewed another Chagoyan/Fernandez production, La Guerrero Vengadora 2. It has taken me that long to find another of her films in a format I can understand without having to rope Chris into translating for me (I’d rather save the martyr points required for something more worthwhile). This follows Guerrero by three years, yet is more than slightly similar. In both, the heroine has a secret identity; and both also end with a helicopter going up against a rocket-launcher. Ok, technically it’s a bazooka here. Close enough for anti-government work. For that’s Chagoyan’s main pastime here, after her father was betrayed and executed by the unpleasant Colonel Pereza (Estrada).

To this end, her formal job is as the title character, the star of a nightclub show, where she sings, dances and wears costumes which are capable of blocking out the sun. This gives her access to all the high officials, including her lover, Colonel Montero. But when not performing moderately well-staged musical numbers, she is also Commander Zeta, leading the rebels from the front. She gets some help from the CIA, because it turns out the concentration camp set up by the regime, populated by captured rebels, is being use to provide subjects for a germ warfare project, under the control of an Iraqi scientist. So between stopping that, taking revenge on Pereza and performing complicated cabaret numbers twice nightly, Juana has quite the to-do list.

It is, of course, utterly implausible nonsense, which barely stands up to a first glance, never mind a second one. However, the saving grace is that everyone involved, not least Chagoyan, goes at it with admirable seriousness. The rebels believe in Commander Zeta, the authorities believe in Commander Zeta, and undeniably, Commander Zeta deeply believes in Commander Zeta. Nowhere is this more evident than when she whips her top off to lure government forces into an ambush. I guess it’s fortunate none of the soldiers to whom she bares her breasts, have ever been to her nightclub. But in terms of action, the resulting battle between tanks and horses is likely the film’s best work. It ends in Chagoyan catching a lit Molotov cocktail out of the air, and slam-dunking it down a tank hatch.

Admittedly, that isn’t quite as good as that sounds – it’s only barely lit. But considering the time and place this was made (1994 Mexico), this is impressively progressive. Juana is a decent heroine, not needing a man, yet still capable of loving one. Though by the time we reach the face-off against that helicopter, the body count has been surprisingly high. There are, admittedly, at least two musical numbers too many, to the point where this felt more like a Bollywood production on occasion. However, this was likely still better than I expected given its origins, and I was entertained to a quite acceptable degree.

Dir: Raul Fernandez Jr.
Star: Rosa Gloria Chagoyan, Erik Estrada, Rolando Fernández, Manuel Ojeda

Justice is Calling, by Justin Sloan and Michael Anderle

  By

Literary rating: ★★★
Kick-butt quotient: ☆☆☆☆

I’ve heard of the “Kurtherian Gambit” universe before, but this would appear to be the first book I’ve read which is part of it. For some reason, I thought it was more of a science-fiction series. While there are elements of that, such as anti-gravity, and the overall setting is post-apocalyptic, this entry seems more like urban fantasy. We have the almost requisite vampires and werewolves, the former represented by the story’s main protagonist, Valerie. She flees the carnage in Europe after her brother tries to kill her, accompanied only by her faithful human sidekick, Sandra. On the airship to New York, they meet Diego, who is a werepuma, and the trio become allies.

On arrival, however, their individual goals in the New World have to take a back seat. They discover that humans in the city are using the local Weres to hunt and abduct vampires, so their blood can be harvested, and used as an “elixir of youth”. Valerie isn’t standing for that, needless to say, and starts assembling a combined force of vampires and Weres, to stop the farming and go after its instigator, Strake – part of a shadowy trio who run the city. Adding a sense of urgency, is that her brother is on his way across the Atlantic, eager to add what’s left of the United States to his dominion. There’s also whispered legends of the “Dark Messiah”, a particularly powerful vampire. Could that be Valerie? Or is there someone even above her?

The cover is a bit misleading, as Valerie seems much more inclined to use the sword nestling on her hip – or even her bare hands – than anything as prosaic as a firearm. Looking at the cover, it was only then I realized, it tells me more about what the heroine looks like, than I’d gleaned from the whole novel. As events were unspooling in my head cinema, she was almost a blank space. Diego probably gets more descriptive prose. The authors do a good job of capturing her personality though, and how honour is an important aspect of it. I also liked the dry humour that occasionally popped out.

There is definitely no shortage of action: the movie of my imagination was rated a hard R for strong violence. It builds over the course of proceedings nicely. First, Valerie rescues Diego from Strake’s “Enforcers”; then she and her were/vamp loyalists mount an assault on Strake’s HQ; finally, she has to face her brother in single combat. It did skirt around the deus ex machina a bit at the end, with a convenient (and not unexpected) arrival; though wisely, this then stands back and lets Valerie handle things herself. I’m not sure the set-up here quite justifies a further seven more volumes. Yet as a quick read, this was entertaining enough to leave me at least somewhat curious to see where it goes.

Author: Justin Sloan and Michael Anderle
Publisher: LMBPN Publishing, available through Amazon, both as a paperback and an e-book
1 of 8 in the Reclaiming Honor series.

Spoor

  By

★★★
“Call of the wild”

Janina Duszejko (Mandat) is a former engineer, who now lives in a small rural Polish town. She has a deep love of nature and animals. This is a belief not shared by many of the local population, who treat animals as a resource, put there for their benefit – an attitude which brings them into conflict with Duszejko. After her two dogs disappear, she goes to the authorities, but they blow her off. However, the man she suspects most, turns up dead – just the first in a series of mysterious deaths, that may be related to Jaroslav Wnetzak, a local businessman with a finger in a number of shady pies. Subsequent corpses include the police chief, who owes Wnetzak money.

With the help of Dyzio (Gierszal), an IT consultant working for the police, Duszejko is able to investigate things. She also begins a romantic relationship with visiting Czech entomologist Boros Schneider (Krobot), after he discovers Wnetzak’s body in the forest, months after the businessman had disappeared. Things come to a head when Duszejko is arrested following the death of the mayor, having been the last to have seen him alive. But what exactly is going on? Is this those shady business dealings gone wrong? Or are the animals taking revenge on those who have hunted them? While I can’t say much more, you can probably get some kind of hint to the situation, simply from the fact that it’s being reviewed here. And perhaps the poster.

Holland is a veteran director, with over 40 years of features in her native Poland, plus episodes of US shows including The Wire, The Killing and House of Cards. You can tell, since this is confident and assured, as well as providing some truly beautiful and atmospheric shots of the countryside, imbuing it with a mystical quality. Animals loom out of the mist, almost like prehistoric creatures [hey, wild boar were driven extinct in Britain during the 1600’s], and the humans may not be that much more evolved. The lines are deliberately blurred at a couple of points, such as in Wnetzak’s brothel, where the women are dressed as cats, bunnies, etc. or at a costume ball which Duszejko attends as the big, bad wolf.

She makes an interesting character: clearly smart, yet her fierce devotion is certainly a weakness, and perhaps her undoing, especially when the police, etc. blow her concerns off.  However, at 128 minutes, there feels too much slack. The subplot involving the entomologist in particular, seems to bring things lurching to a halt in the middle, just when the mysterious deaths ramp up, and should begin driving things forward. I’d have moved this element towards the beginning, part of establishing Duszejko’s character. It doesn’t serve any essential part in the main plot, requiring it to be in the position where it takes place. However, the majority of the film still works, and represents a thought-provoking and well-crafted entity for the majority of its length, that does a decent job of mixing in its message.

Dir: Agnieszka Holland
Star: Agnieszka Mandat, Patricia Volny, Jakub Gierszał, Miroslav Krobot