Crooked house – a review

A private detective is called upon by a former flame to investigate the death of her grandfather. She suspects that one of her relatives living in the old man’s estate is in fact a murderer. Who did it and why? On the first visit to the ‘crooked house’ Charles Hayward discovers that each and every member of this strange family is more than capable of murder.

The crooked house has, until now, been the only Agatha Christie novel yet to be filmed. It is also one of the most wickedly dark (and Agatha Christie’s personal favourite) stories she ever wrote.

I for one can attest that it is my favourite amongst Christie’s more obscure novels.

It is perhaps a bit convenient that at the time of the big cinema release of another Agatha Christie adaptation (Murder on the orient express) that this smaller sized drama should come about. But I’m not complaining. Not if it is a drama that is so incredibly well make.

At least it’s not Hollywood bringing out two competing volcano or asteroids movies at the same time.

The rule of thumb when it comes to adapting a novel for the first time has to be: ‘get it exactly right’. Meandering and changes to the story can happen at a later (re)adaptation. For the first one the stakes are high to bring the pages to the screen as accurately as possible.
Knowing this (and wanting this) I simply cannot find a singular flaw (but one –I’ll leave it for the spoiler) in this movie.
Though I must admit that I knew the ‘Who’ in this whodunit  beforehand. So, perhaps, people going in blank might see the obviousness that I disregarded as my ‘insiders knowledge’.

The cast
The cast is comprised with character actors of the highest order. Gillian Anderson is –once again- having a ball playing a different kind of character.
Just take a look at her resume: The cold doctor in Hannibal, the weird bride in Great expectations and, of course, her ‘facts first’ agent Scully in the X-files. She must be living the actress’ dream of being capable (in roles offered) to take on variety. Her turn in Crooked house as the self-centred, faded actress, Magda is –like the bourbon the character pours herself at 10 in the morning: ‘just what the doctor ordered’.

The other pillar of an actress known to take on a variety of female parts is, of course, the grand Glenn Close.

Not always, she’s played a male-character twice as far as I remember.

She plays her ‘aunty’-part with the grace of ancient aristocracy. -Well, grace by the end of a double-barrelled shotgun at least.- Her white hair contrast beautifully with her twinkling eyes as her character is the very definition of the smartest person in the room.
I’ve seen the actress in period pieces before (e.g. Dangerous Liaisons) and, as she grows older, it seems almost as if the time forms around her characters instead of the other way around. Close’s ‘Auntie’ belongs in the estate of the crooked house. It’s her powerhouse performance that makes the story richer as you see her brooding in the background.

To end this segment with one of my favourite male actors: Julian Sands. After his double turn in the popcorn-pleasing Arachnophobia and Warlock he could never do no wrong by me (though he tried in The Phantom of the opera).

He even appeared in a favourite TV show of mine: Person of Interest. His character vowing to

return to haunt Finch and Reese again. Alas he never did.

Seeing him now as the self-destructing better half of Gillian Anderson’s character is a feast for the eyes. Even though his character is only allowed to play (for most of it) the money hungry former aristocrat he plays it with delicious glee.

But only highlighted three of the actors is cutting it short. All the actors in this movie are a delicious watch. From the little girl, her older brother, the extremely young grandmother all the way to Terence Stamp playing the Scotland Yard copper.

A direct spoiler – I thought it was (in the book at least) Stamp’s character who gave the main character the clue to solving the case: ‘The fact that killers wish to talk about their crime.’. This adaptation didn’t use it which makes the character Stamp is playing a tad ‘cardboard copper’. Nothing his natural charm can’t overcome but still. A bit of a missed opportunity.
The movie did keep the possible inbreeding-element as I will mention below. So the two main clues are still present in this adaptation.

The story and directing
Ticking in at almost two hours this movie takes its time for the audience to get to know the characters.
In fact, even though the movie delivers such a strange family of suspects at the basis of the story I found it rather refreshing that, after twenty minutes or so, I knew the various relationships. The movie takes its time for the audience to learn the family dynamic. Who is who and who wants what?
Which; of course leads to the one thing a crime mystery can’t do without: Everybody wants something!

Throughout this lengthy introduction there are also little sneers at the fading British aristocracies in the ‘50s and ‘60s. The fact that ‘Auntie’ hunts moles with a shotgun because the animals are haemophiliacs is a direct reference to the century long inbreeding that went on in the upper-class families.

Then there are the timebased elements that always serve so well for a red-herring or two: communism, mafia, sibling rivalry. It all coats this dark tale with a beguiling fog of secrecy.

But the running time isn’t very long in experience. In fact, the balance of the movie is just right between the main character/detective Charles (Max Irons) questioning suspects and the strange crooked things that go around in that silly old house.
My favourite scene by far is the dinner scene that could have been written by Winston Churchill. Never before have I witnessed such an uncomfortable family gathering wherein insulting one another is treated as an art form.

Well maybe Festen – but let’s keep this article light shall we.

More so the directing underlines the lines spoken. Gilles Paquet-Brenner applies very little tomfoolery with the camera (apart from a nicely dark ballet-scene near the end).
I noticed some nice strange angles the camera uses at times and a rather distorting lens once or twice – but that’s icing on the cake comprised of a solid script and stellar performances. The directing lets the words do most of the work. In this movie the words (in comparison to Paquet-Brenner’s previous movie Dark places) work marvellously.

The one little flaw (maybe)
Which brings me to the one true flaw I could think of.  Which is not even a flaw, to be honest. At least it’s a spoiler to the movie so be wary.

The one flaw that I currently think of is a debatable one: the movie ends with a rather sudden anti-climactic ending. The viewer is denied any experience of the other characters after they learned the truth.
I’m on two minds about this one. One the one hand I would like to see the dramatic effect on the various character. Whilst, on the other, I can accept the choice. In fact, we (the audience) don’t need any further exploration. Our instincts and mental narrative will fill in what happens next.
So this is nicely debatable as an anti-climactic sudden ending needs to be.

Conclusion
If you wish to see Agatha Christie’s darkest novel done right look no further than Crooked house. This is the prime example of a perfect adaptation. Maybe some people won’t like the story – that’s Christie’s fault not the moviemakers. Crooked house singlehandedly restored my fate in book-adaptations for the next year. I really enjoyed it a lot!

Murder on the Orient Express (2017) – a review

Hercule Poirot (Kenneth Branagh) is travelling to London by the luxurious train: the orient express. Then one night one the of the passengers is murdered right under his very nose well groomed moustache. Who is the culprit? Who of the twelve passengers on board had means, motive and opportunity? It’s up to the Belgian sleuth to figure out. 

From all of Agatha Christie’s books ‘Murder on the orient express’ has been turned into a movie quite a lot of times.

Only losing to ‘And then there were none’ – which was made six times so far.

There is the famous 1974-version with Albert Finney. The TV-version with the amazing David Suchet in his career defining role. And the little known (but rather interesting actually) modernized version that has Alfred Molina as the Belgian sleuth.

There’s also a (haven’t seen it yet) Japanese version and a (terrible) videogame so there’s that.

So for Kenneth Branagh’s version things had to be a bit different this time around lest he’d be accused of ‘rehashing’.  Well…in the safe hands of the Shakespearean theatre buff Branagh there are a lot of things that go right in this particular outing. But, alas, to me this version of Murder on the orient express also falls prey to the preferences of the director that don’t always work for me. Let’s start with the positive: the moustache.

The moustache – style.
Kenneth Branagh has always been a rather stylish director. From décor; like his strange timeless setting of Hamlet (1996) or his highly modern version of Sleuth (2007). To strange camera-movements that managed to give Thor (2011) one up on the standard Marvel-fare to that point. This is a man who loves to have fun with a setting and a camera. This ‘20s murder mystery is no exception.

There are long sweeping shots- with never a ‘celeb’ out of sight - at the start of the movie that introduces all the characters. One shot in peculiar has a movie-buff like me giggling: “There’s Dafoe, there’s Dench, there’s Cruz…” The camera picks up on them in the background without focussing on them which sells the idea of an ensemble movie.

Another great example of a shot is the fact that the camera (in the first two investigative scenes) never enters the compartment of the murder victim. The camera hovers above. During the discovery of the body outside of the compartment. At the investigation of the body well above so the audience can’t make out any details.

And then of course there are the final ‘last supper shot’ and  the ‘point-of-view-shot’ from the trailer which thankfully made it into the movie.

So if you know the story by heart then this version of ‘Murder…’ has more than enough cinematic tricks up its sleeve to keep you interested. And that’s even before you get introduced to the powerhouse actors Brannagh has managed to acquire.

The small shoes – Acting
Branagh as Poirot first. Branagh’s Poirot is actually rather pleasing. True, he fails miserably at the ‘egg-shaped head’ of the Belgium detective. But the wonderful moustache and the twinkle in his eyes make up all the better for it. I did however wonder about –at the movie progressed- the ‘activeness’ this rendition of the famous sleuth showcases.
Poirot isn’t a fighting man. In fact, early in the movie you see Poirot bending down to feel the wind blowing underneath a door. Even that’s not Poirot. That’s not the man who walks on painfully small shoes because they look better on him.
So Branagh’s Poirot is a mixed bag for me. He looks and acts the character when he’s speaking to a suspect. But whenever he’s investigating or (dear me) fighting he’s as far removed as Margaret Rutherford was as Miss Marple.

Now in a play that has twelve suspects to be interviewed you can only give so much screen time to each. In short: you are going to get people with minor parts. Derek Jacobi, for instance, only has a three minute scene to leave his mark. But, that’s all an actor of his stature needs. He sits down, plays his part beautifully and leaves.
Each and every actor is perfectly devoted to his/her part: Ridley, Jacobi, Cruz, Dafoe, Depp at his vilest (always great). With, of course, Michelle Pfeiffer standing out as the modern day Lauren Bacall.

With Cruz who has the greatest shoes to fill: Ingrid Bergman's Oscar winning performance.

Personally I wish to tip my hat to Josh Gad. I always enjoy the actor. His role in 21 was nerdy and fun and he never really stopped playing that character-but with a twist. Each time he gives you exactly what you expect but takes it a small step further.

He certainly was the best thing in Beauty and the beast (That and the snowball flooring Belle – sorry I’m a sucker for slapstick comedy).

The accent: music
The music by Patrick Doyle, then, is great in this outing. But I do miss the train element that worked so well in the score of the 1974-version or other ‘train movies’ like The first great train robbery.
The score contains three main tracks (ha!) from Mediterranean, to bombastic to dramatic small. It is never overtaking like a John Williams score can be. Rather it makes its presence known at those little moments of silence whenever the movie demands it.

The (titanium?) cane: What I disliked.
However, there are a few things that I disliked in this version.
For starters casting Leslie Odom Jr. as the doctor. This is a period piece so, due to this casting-choice, racism is going to be part of the story. The problem, however, is that it doesn’t have to be. If the movie decided on a Caucasian actor for the part (the Sean Connery part in the 1974-version) it wouldn’t have to sidetrack by answering questions how a Afro-American man got a degree in Medicine.

This is a two-part critique I always have with Branaghs later movies: he makes it too difficult on himself by including additional elements or he focuses too much on subtext. Let’s start with the latter.

Not Dead again mind you. That movie is practically perfect in every way (LINK)!

Subtext.
His version of Sleuth, for instance, shifted focus on the underlining homosexual tension between the two main characters. True, this tension is right there in the original play but it’s not the most important thing –which is two men trying to outsmart each other.
In ‘Murder…’ the same happens with the final choice Poirot gives the suspects. Yes, the deeply religious Poirot does –deep down inside- want honest justice for crimes committed. He wants to be judge and executioner. But he never gives in until the very end of his life. So by highlighting the subtext Branagh’s movie makes Poirot far more vengeful already than the path he is travelling at.

Additional elements.
‘Murder…’ has two big action sequences the movie could have done without. True, they aren’t very annoying if not for the fact that the ‘walking penguin’ which is Poirot suddenly becomes a bit of an action star.
But what ‘annoyed’ (for want of a better word) me more were the two additional ‘attack’-scenes included (the knife and the gun). Those aren’t in the book and rather overcomplicate an already complicated plot.
So that’s my issue with this rendition of ‘Murder…’ There are things added that didn’t need to be added. Instead this movie could have been even better with more time spent on the suspects. I would’ve loved an additional three minutes of Jacobi or Cruz.

Madame et monsieur
2017’s re-adaptation of Murder on the Orient express works and fails evenly. The characters are well acted and the style of directing is a feast for the eyes. However, the plot muddles with unnecessary additions and a focus on subtext.
Personally I would have preferred the exact same script of the 1974-version with Branagh’s style of directing and (maybe) cast. Now I only got half of the perfect Agatha Christie retelling.
But, then again, after two great versions of the ‘train murder’ it was a hard act to follow. Perhaps Brannagh will find more solid ground on a boating trip down the Nile.

Strange movie deaths quiz 3.

Shall we play a game? 

One of the perks of watching a lot of movies is that you see screenwriters getting more and more creative as time goes on. Writers always try to come up with something that hasn’t been attempted/done before. And nowhere has this been more apparent than in the morbid niche of movie storytelling that is: the death scene.

I must have seen thousands of people meet their maker on the silver screen during my short life on this earth. Explosions, gunshots, you name it. But there are far more creative ways to kill a human –as movies tell us.

So here I wish to have a little (morbid) quiz. I state ten causes of death and in the spoiler tag below it is the movie it came from. See how many you get.

Theme: chest pains.

This time ‘round I wanted to focus on where certain objects hit. My choice: to the chest. So here are ten unfortunates who took something to the chest that didn’t agree with them.

1. Death by stalactite to the chest.

Cliffhanger.

2. Death by a scissor sculpture (to the chest).

Dead again.

3. Death by an atomic bomb (to the chest).

Broken arrow.

4. Death by a VX rocket (to the chest).

The rock.

5. Death by an airplane engine (to the chest).

Donnie Darko.

6. Death by pool cue (to the chest).

From dusk till dawn.

7. Death by a giant bear-trap (to the chest).

Ravenous.

8. Death by satellite dish (to the chest).

Goldeneye.

9. Death by barb wire (to the chest).

Final destination 2.

10. Death by arms being bitten off by a (gnarly)…chest.

The thing.

Stranger Things 2 – A review

All is not quiet in Hawkins Indiana. There are old wounds that just refuse to close. Will tries to cope with his new existence as ‘the boy who lived’/’zombieboy’. Mike misses his friend Eleven with every breath he takes and then there’s the rip in the continuum down in Hawkins lab.

When, at Halloween, Sheriff Hopper is asked to investigate a peculiar pumpkin problem it starts off a chain of events that reopens the old wounds and creates many new ones.

Stranger Things is back! If there’s one thing the creators of the show (The Duffer brothers) knew from the get go was that their new outing wouldn’t be ‘as fresh’ as last year’s sleeper hit. But to counter this the creators filled season 2 to the brim with nods to famous 80s sequels, a bigger budget, fan-service and a satisfying continuation on the characters we love. This season wears its ‘2’ with pride and rightfully so.

This season is just as delicious to watch as the season previous. It’s nostalgia with great characters and a healthy dose of pure horror sprinkled on top. But, to be honest, there are a few small tears here and there (in the fabric of time and space) that make this season slightly less perfect. I’ll get to that.

MadMax – (New) adult characters

The first thing I noticed as I binge-watched the show (3:00 AM!) was that the titles were different than what we (the audience) were teased last year. The first episode is still called MadMax, but the rest are different. I don’t know what went on in the creative process. But, then again, ‘what’s in a name’.

Anyway I decided to use the ‘original’ teased titles as a coat rack to hang my article on. Beginning with MadMax or: (New) adult characters.

The reason why the first season worked so well was because the characters were all so very well written. Especially Winona Ryder was a hoot as Joyce Byers; the ultimate lioness of a mother willing to do anything to protect her cub. In that season she came up with a clever scheme to communicate with her lost son. This season showcases her intelligence yet again as a woman who has, by now, fully accepted the stranger things going on in her hometown. It’s this acceptance and her blind love for (and trust in) her child that makes her one of the favourite characters in the show.

That and the fact that she can be, at times, mad as a hatter. This is a hilarious overprotective woman who isn’t afraid to break her house down if it would save her son. It’s a logical madness that, at first glance, might look like a weakness but instead makes the Joyce character richer.

Then there’s Bob (Sean Astin). I liked Bob. But was for a while afraid that good Bob might be a bad Bob.

I like saying the name: Bob!

Even though he’s mainly written in the show as for his BASIC-skill set -and his The Goonies fame- he does bring a nice stability to the Byers family. He’s the new goofy normality that this dysfunctional family is striving for. Given the fact that Sean Astin has cemented himself in Hollywood as the go to nice guy it’s nice to see him charm his way through the episodes. His character’s love for Joyce is real and he really is trying to connect to the boys. Like Sherriff Hopper he is a man willing to do anything to protect and serve.

A much better part than what the actor got handed in The Strain.

This brings us to the villain of the piece: Dr. Owens (Paul Reiser) of Aliens-fame. Who, in fact, isn’t a villain at all. In the character’s own words (paraphrasing):”I’m the schmuck people brought in the fix the mess.”

Yes, he works for the ‘dark side’. But his morality is straight as an arrow. He is a great antidote to last year’s Dr. Brenner; because he's the nicest 'villain' ever. This is, I consider, a great move on the creators’ part. We already had one big human villain in the show, why would we need another one?

Nerdy me, by the way, loved the final Lab-showdown for the character because it kept reminding me of this little YouTube sci-fi gem: the tower. Watch this one, it’s great!

One bad beat, though, are Mike’s mom and dad. They take quite a step backwards this season. Last year Mike’s mother was the pillar of stability in the Wheeler household. When Mike thought Will was dead he went to his caring mother to cry. This season she comes across as a ‘desperate housewife’. Like the character has been turned upside down.

The Boy Who Came Back to Life – (New) child characters

Another smart move the creators made this season was changing the spotlight of the characters. In the first season it was Mike (Finn Wolfhard) and Eleven’s (Millie Bobby Brown) show. Will (Noah Schnapp) was missing most of the time and Dustin (Gaten Matarazzo) and Lucas (Caleb McLaughlin) were in the background doing their thing. This season the character focus has been turned ‘upside down’ (sorry for the pun).

For a short while it is suspected that this season is going to be all Will. And certainly the actor gets a lot more to do this season. He’s an emotional wreck trying to cope with the darkness that’s hunting him. Plus he, once again, is allowed to showcase his intelligence to his mother. He certainly is Will the wise! But in the end, without spoiling too much, when darkness engulfs him the focus remains steadily on Dustin, Lucas and the new girl in town Max (Sadie Sink).

I did get my wish though: evil Will. Awesome!

It’s always difficult to include a new character in a beloved show. And, I must admit, it took me a while to warm up to Max. The reason for this is actually spotlighted in the show itself as Mike tells her (paraphrasing): "I'm the Paladin, Will is the Cleric, Dustin the Bard, Lucas the Ranger and Eleven the Mage." There’s no real reason to have the girl around (apart from the hilarious hormones-related scenes for Dustin and Lucas). Most of the time she’s in the background reacting to what’s happening.

This has partly to do with the fact that it takes a while before the audience learns the truth about her and her brother. And when ‘we’ do it turns out that she isn’t part of the whole mystery (yet).

That doesn’t make me dislike her. In fact the actress plays her part beautifully. It’s just that her part, for now, only functions to flesh out the Lucas and Dustin parts.

Lucas and Dustin then are the true main characters of this season. Lucas has a loving family (‘in which mom is always right’) with an annoying sister to boot. And Dustin has a cat lady for a mother (of course he does) and a penchant for creepy animals and swearwords.

SPOILER: As in the first season I like the logic in this show. It isn't Will's thrown up slug that happens to happen upon Dustin's dustbin. No there are more. It's like putting some logic to a ‘leap in logic’ audience members have grown accustomed to.

Both boys shine in their increased roles. Especially McLaughin’s Lucas makes up for lost character development that was lacking last season. And Matarazzo’s Dustin just keeps on being hilarious – but with a real heart as is shown in the last ten minutes of the season.

The Pumpkin Patch – The eleven episode

Eleven or Jane, was left out for most of this season. A snippet here and there of her sulking in her cabin. With one delicious puberty-fuelled outburst of jealousy.

There are several things to keep in mind when writing a character like Eleven. For starters her powers need to be contained. You can never have a superhero who’s too powerful. That’s why Superman has his kryptonite. So that’s one of the reasons why Eleven had to be locked away most of the season.

Second, with such a mystery shrouded character, you’d want to explore her past a bit. But by doing that there’s always a danger of hurting the other characters.

Supposedly Mike was there when Eleven visited her ‘mama’. The writers have to incorporate his character’s reaction to what he learns there. And maybe that doesn’t work in the long run.

So by taking Eleven away from Hawkins the show creates a nice standalone episode that either works for the overall show or can be discarded: a safe bet. It might feel a bit out of place in the grand scheme of things. But then, again, her character needs it.

Kali/eight (Linnea Berthelsen), in this episode, is, to me, a good addition to the Eleven-mythology. This revenge-driven (let’s be honest) psychopath serves in the overall storyline of Eleven as both an expansion as a setting of borders (quite literally really). Eleven learns that she’s not alone. Yet she also accepts her goodness and love for those people who helped her a year back.

This episode is a nice change from the rural American style that is Stranger Things. Plus it allowed the creators to do one thing which every sequel-maker wants to play around with: bring a 80s city to life due to a bigger budget.

The Palace – Sequel galore

As I said in the opening this season of Stranger Things wears it’s ‘2’ with pride.

Just remember the ‘rules of the sequel’ from Scream 2:

• The body count is always bigger.
• The death scenes are always much more elaborate, with more blood and gore.
• Never, ever, under any circumstances assume the killer is dead.

All this happens in Stranger Things 2. But there’s more.

There are, for instance, several references to Indiana Jones and the temple of Doom. Blocks under a child’s feet to drive a car. Hopper picking up his hat from the ground. And, of course, Nancy and Jonathan’s internal discussion at the ‘conspiracy theorists house’.

I like the couple very much. But, like last season, their storyline (Barb) is a bit detached from the rest of the show.

This brings me to the other ‘sequel’ thing I wish to highlight here: fans!

I’ve been reading on fan culture for years now (Henry Jenkins’ Textual Poachers and Matt Hill’s Fan cultures are the cornerstone books on fan research). And if there’s one thing that’s always a bit murky is the question if ‘whether or not a creator should give the fan what he/she wants?’. The will-they-won’t-they-issue.

Should the creator hold off on the payoff of letting the hero and heroine get together or not? Sometimes it works (e.g. Bones). Sometimes it doesn’t (e.g. Glee) or it’s too late (e.g. Frasier). That’s one of the ways of looking at why Eleven was in her cabin most of this season. Because the payoff between her and Mike already happened – they are in (childish) love.

The conspiracy theorist Murray Bauman (a hilarious part by Brett Gelman) takes this issue head on. In a meta-sense he explains the problem of being a fan: ‘you want it to happen, whilst, at the same time you don’t’. It’s like postponing desert – the best part of a meal.

The inclusion of this scene makes Stranger Things 2 as a sequel even richer. It knows what it is (like Mike explaining Max the function of each member of the group). It knows the sequel tropes it’s dancing to. So why not highlight it? Like nostalgia. That’s why the show indulges in those hilarious ‘photo moments’. And that’s certainly why one of the episodes ends with the Ghostbusters song. That’s what the fans want – so give it to them! But don’t let them forget that –as a group of philosophers once said: ‘you can’t always get what you want!’

The Pollywog – Some critiques

Directing-wise this season is as solid as the first. But with the twist that –apart from the increased budget for lavish special effects- there is a sense of some fun with the camera. There’s a great long take shot at the Halloween party (ever since Goodfellas that’s a thing – long takes and social gatherings). And there’s a wonderful rotating shot of Sherriff Hopper in the tunnel.

I don't know; I'm a sucker for those claustrophobic backlit shots.

It’s only the flow of the story that feels a bit off this time ‘round.

As I said before it took (quite) a while before Mike and Eleven got together again (for various reasons). But then there’s Kali’s appearance in the opening and the way she’s ‘forgotten’ for the next six episodes. Or the long time before the show allowed some character development for Billy (Dacre Montgomery). I think these things should have been shifted.

I liked that scene of Billy with his father. Just simple little 'names' like faggot. You don't say that to your son no matter how out of line he is! So just this particular swearword made me dislike the father with a vengeance. Quite the achievement for the singular scene he was in. Having said that, even though I understand the evil stepbrother better doesn't mean that I like him. Him, picking on little girls. Slamming a plate against poor Steve's head in (what he intended to be) a honest fistfight. Tsk tsk.

Billy, for me stayed an evil no-good bastard because his character development came too late. Kali, I almost forgot about until Eleven visited the big city.

Then there’s the general mystery of the show which starts a bit late as well. In this season there isn’t a missing boy-case in the very first episode. It takes a while to get started. I’m on two minds about this one. I liked the little tickle here and there before the season shifted in top gear at the Mew Mew-moment. But maybe it should have happened sooner.

 By the way: putting a kid under, out again and under again. I'm not an anaesthetist and neither are any of the characters. But, this is one of those tropes that just keep on giving.

A final scriptural issue I have with this season of Stranger Things is the last episode. It contained some rather convenient writing on the Steve part just to keep his character involved. A problem derived from too many (fan favourite) characters to juggle near the end. But, having said that, -as with the rest of the show- the show does deal with this issue with such charm that it’s (almost) easily forgiven.

The Secret Cabin – Spoiler galore.

Alright, this is the paragraph to skip if you do not wish to be spoiled. Final warning!

So now with the portal closed all seems quiet in the little town of Hawkins. In fact, the story has been wrapped up so nicely with a string and a bow (and two kisses this time –again the number ‘2’) that it is safe to assume that next year something cataclysmically has to happen to get everybody involved once again. At least there are some parts left out in the open: Will Dustin finally get a girlfriend? Will Steve get a girlfriend?

I'm still hoping for some residue superpower residing in Will. We've had a somewhat evil Will which was great. But, now I want to see him truly be part of the group instead of the victim. Something like a scene in the upside down in which Will goes: "Don't worry guys...been here before. I got this!” Who knows; maybe he became immune to the upside-down gooey.

Anyway, that would mean that one of the other boys might become a victim next year. My guess is Dustin and the stuff he inhaled in the tunnel.

Other loose strands are off course the evil stepbrother Billy with his terribly unbuttoned shirt (and give him a razor please). And the whereabouts of Dr. Brenner/ ’Papa’.

I said from the get go that he isn't dead yet. ‘Big bad’s don’t die that easily. Having said that I do now fear for dear Dr. Owens’s life. A tried and tested method of re-introducing the big bad: let him kill his replacement.

Then of course there is Kali/eight and her trigger-happy friends and the whole back-story they bring in regards to Eleven’s mother. I would like to see them return.

The Brain – The map

The map. The most popular article I posted on this silly blog of mine.

I intend to continue on it. And thank goodness Stranger Things season 2 helped me out. There are three distinct moments in the season that a map of Hawkins is shown. So that’s going to take some prt scr-ing. Then there’s a map of (at least three floors) of Hawkins laboratory and a whole map of the tunnel system (even though that one is going to be immensely complex to draw out).

Then there are the new locations like the arcade, the three pumpkin farms (each with names or their owners)

Great to see Matty Cardarople. I liked him in Jurassic World and A series of unfortunate events. However, he does only play one kind of character. He's good at it, no worries there. But if he's going to be a recurring character next season he needs some development.

and of course the verbal references to locations. Places like ‘lover’s lane’. Some lakes. The fact that Max lives in a poor street while she goes trick-or-treating in ‘rich town’. The fact that the school is about a mile west (or east) from Eleven’s cabin. The car graveyard now resides on top of a hill south of Hawkins on walking distance to the lab. Et cetera.

One little issue I did find with my map is the space between the lab and Will's house. In season one Will was caught because he lives close to the lab. You could walk it.

Now the sheriff and Eleven drive for a good 10-15 minutes to get there. Maybe there is some artistic freedom going on here?

I’m going to have some fun!

The Lost Brother – Conclusion

This episode has now been renamed The gate – talk about a 80s title.

Stranger Things 2 is a blast for everyone who liked the first season. It’s more of the same with a bigger budget and far more horror. It’s like this season wants to remind its audience that this season is grander than we ever seen before like a sequel should.

Each and every member of the cast is devoted to bringing you the best time in Hawkins you could ever wish for. Some major players of the first season might take a step back from the spotlight to let others shine. But by doing that the series allows for a further exploration of the stranger things going on in that little 80s town of America. To quote Dustin: “Prrrrrrrrrrrrr!”

Annabel: creation – a review

Six girls and a nun are invited to live in the country home of an old doll maker and his bedridden wife. One night one of the girls finds something she wasn’t supposed to find: a possessed doll named Annabel.

I said it before and I’ll say it again, somehow, horror movie sequels are turning out better than their predecessors. Like Ouija: Origin of evil, Annabel: Creation is a deliciously scary movie with a black heart of gold.

The second better sequel Lulu Wilson appears it. The girl is a lucky charm.

There is lots to like in this movie and I’ll get to them in due course. But here, right now, I wish to take a moment and lament each and every character’s selective loss of hearing!
Anybody who has a sister knows that a girl’s scream is about the loudest sound in the known universe. And the girls scream a lot in this movie. Yet nobody hears them?

This is the only truly, silly, thing that I couldn’t let slide in this movie.

Like any other spooky movie there are one or two faux pas (or leaps in logic). You’ll just have to accept them. But sometimes a movie strains your willingness  a bit too much.
That being said the rest of the review is going to be all out praise. I loved Annabel: creation.

Well, maybe one other little issue I had with this movie? SPOILER: What’s wrong with a Bible-lined stainless steel metal box filled with crosses and holy water and bury the doll on a Christian cemetery? A closet…really?

A GREAT OPENING
The movie starts lovely. Both parents (Miranda Otto and Anthony LaPaglia who play Esther and  Mullins) are as sweet as can be and in this wonderful world of bliss when…BAMB, you are reminded  that you are watching a horror film.

I like this turnaround on the famous horror trope. A lot of horror movies have a mysterious grumpy character roaming around (the haunted house). Now, normally this gloomy character explains the back-story about the ghost in the finale of the movie. Thus revealing after the fact that he was a good guy after all.

But characters are all about the way they are introduced. They can change through the story but first impressions matter. So the gloomy character in this example would remain a gloomy character with a little more heart.

So by inverting this trope in Annabel: Creation we are introduced to a loving couple. Whereby the downtrodden versions you see in the rest of the movie still maintain this first impression of sweet people. So LaPaglia grunting droopy-eyed as he fixes Sister Charlotte’s dumbwaiter becomes, by knowing his back-story, a loving character who went through a lot of pain. Not a nasty character that might have some sweetness hidden inside.

THE GIRLS
After the opening the audience is introduced to the main cast of the movie: six orphan girls, a nun and father Massey (who delivers the best joke of the entire movie).

Two girls (Tayler Buck and Lou Lou Saffran) don’t really get to do a lot. A shame really because I think this movie has enough hauntings to go around. But I do mention them because, even though they are glorified extras, their mere presence makes the ordeal these orphans as a whole face a bit grander.

But, I must admit, I’m on two minds on this one. The movie would have been equally effective if these characters were written out.

The other four girls easily line up in pairs. There are the two older girls Carol and Nancy (Grace Fulton and Philippa Coulthard) who each get a nice little scare scene or two. But they are mainly there to feed the power of the villain to a grander level and to isolate the two main actresses: Talitha Eliana Bateman and Lulu Wilson who play Janice and Linda.

If a villain attacks only one person that’s scary enough. But if a villain can attack at two different locations at the same time we are dealing with uncomfortable grand powers.

Again the movie takes a step back to show the sweetness of the characters before introducing the horror elements. Wilson and Bateman shine in these short scenes together that are specifically there to showcase the sisterly love between the two characters. Their friendship is absolute and they are  willing to do anything for each other. It’s believable which makes this the backbone for the rest of the movie.

When the haunting start is when Wilson and Bateman get to have some fun. Shifting between scared out of their wits, panicking and even malevolent-ness these young actresses get to use a whole pallet of (extreme) emotions which they deliver beautifully.

I like to joke that scream queens are getting younger.

After Chloe Moretz’s start of her career in horror movies (Wicked little things, The Amityville horror and Let me in) now it’s Lulu Wilson’s turn to become the queen of the genre.

But then again, as I’m writing this, I just learned that Jamie Lee Curtis is returning to the Halloween franchise. There’s only one true queen!

THE SCARES – CHECHOV HAVING FUN.
Having believable characters with a good heart is only part of a good horror movie. You’ll also need scares. Now, horror movies are known to be (usually) filled to the brim with Chechov’s guns.

I explained this before but I’ll do it again. It goes like this: If a person showcases a gun mounted to the wall in the first act then in the third act that same gun has to go off.

So if a person mentions he’s afraid of the dark…surprise surprise what happens later on.

I remember the music box from the Conjuring 1, the fire truck from the Conjuring 2 and, more recently, the bolt-pistol from IT (quite literally a Chechov’s gun).

There are several in Annabel: Creation: A stair lift, a (very cool –I want one) ball-on-string gun, a scarecrow, a well  and several others that I won’t spoil. And that’s the fun of the horror movie genre. These call backs of things you see earlier in the movie brings a certain satisfaction for the viewer. But they also create tension. You know that something is going to happen with that creaky old stair lift but you just don’t know when or what.

I would even argue that Annabel: Creation does for the stair lift what the shower did for Psycho and the bathtub for What lies beneath. But, then again, I never trusted those contraptions since I saw Gremlins.

But apart from this solid usage of Chechov, Annabel: Creation doesn’t shy away to use some tried and tested favourites. Of course there are the occasional jump-scares. And, of course, a door you closed two times already will open a third time. This is horror-staple and they still work.
In this sense I’m saying that Annabel: Creation is still, in basis, a movie that wants to scare its audience. But it elevates itself over other ghost-movies by including tension and a lot of original intriguing scares next to the ‘old favourites’.

DIRECTING
It is obvious that this movie belongs in the James Wan universe of the Conjuring and Insidious (just look at the demon). The fabulous long-take tracking shot as the girls walk into their new home is a direct copy of the introductionairy scenes from the two Conjuring movies. The way shadow and light are used is more than similar as Wan does in all his ghostly outings.

That similarity does take a bit of the credit away from the director David F. Sandberg. But then again, this is the same director that brought us jump-scare the movie (link) Lights out. Maybe a little bit of work in the style of another director is just what the man needed. He’s talented –no doubt. But I don’t want to sit through another Lights out being frustrated that the movie opts for cheap tricks instead of tension building. And, as I said above, the jump-scares in Annabel: Creation are far more forgivable when there are enough original tension-building scares to counter them.

He does achieve some great shots though. The little joke of inverting a cross. The strange angled shot that starts off hovering over a church. And then, my favourite, a direct reference to the Phantom of the opera.

He definitely had fun making it. But I wouldn’t truly call this movie his own. There’s too much of the established universe peaking over his shoulder.

STORY
To end with story for a change (usually I begin with story); I already let two cats (well kittens) out of the bag at the beginning of this review. Nevertheless the rest of the story is rather logically placed –like a kids’ tea table- around the aforementioned tentpoles of creepy objects/Chechov guns.

Janice wants to leave, Linda wants to help her friend. Nobody tells poor Samuel anything before it is too late. Not because the script demands it but rather because they don’t think anything supernatural is going on.

More so, a small scene between the Mullens actually addresses their worries about the possibility of an evil entity behind some of the events so far. But they quickly dismiss it. This, I think, is a smart move in regards to the story. More often than not horror movies opt to drop these little scenes which in turn causes characters to look oblivious.

Annabel: Creation uses the story like a creaky stair (lift) each logical step brings you higher until you can’t see the bottom anymore.

Annabel creation is already the better movie because of the simple fact that I can hardly remember its predecessor.  Without spoiling too much Annabel: Creation ends with a scene connecting the two movies and it actually took me a second to remember what this whole scene was about.

Overall: Annabel: Creation is locked together far stronger than that ramshackle closet the Mullen keep their creepy doll in. It gives you true, sweet, characters, some scares and a nice bow on top that ties it to the first Annabel movie. That’s all you want in a scary movie. But sometimes a movie just elevates itself above the rest.

Strike - a review

 I think, by now, the cat is so far out of the bag that it can hardly be called a spoiler anymore. Joanne K. Rowling is also Robert Galbraith.

Which is something I always rather liked. I noticed when her first post-Harry Potter book (The casual vacancy) came out that reviewers couldn’t stop linking this new book to the boy-wizard series. And, to be honest, that would be a hard thing to top indeed.

However, when it was revealed that she was also a he naturally this caused quite a happy possibility for the promotional department. Again to be honest, would the Strike books have sold as well if it wasn’t this famous author behind it.

I too only read the first book (Cuckoo’s calling) after the reveal.

Now I don’t believe that Rowling wilfully let the truth behind the pseudonym slip just to sell more books. She’s got more than enough money. I assume that by now she’s living the life we all want: to do a job you love without the financial pressure of mortgages and whatnot.
Creating this pseudonym, to me, really was what it was: to create a new series of books to stand on their own merit regardless of the author.

Rowling loves making series.

I don’t really like the books.
Having said that I don’t always enjoy the Strike novels. Writing the reasons down in this very article caused me to create an entirely separate article which you can find here . The bottom-line is this: A detective novel automatically comes with suspects that need to be questions. And I don’t really like the style that the Strike-novels use. 

That and the moaning about the leg and the poisonous ex-girlfriend.

But (after reading the first two books) something wonderful happened in the TV-adaptation. Whereas in a book each chapter visiting and questioning another suspect becomes dull rather quickly, in a TV-show it is nothing more than one scene after the other. 

You don’t need to start the chapter with the hero waking up and getting a bus to the next suspect. You can immediately cut to it.
 

This because TV (and movies) is such a timed medium that each and every bit of filling has to be left out the door. You’ve only got two/three hours to tell the story.

The same goes for  the ex-girlfriend or the leg trouble. Yes they are important to the character. But for time reasons they can quickly be inserted in fast flashbacks or the occasional grunt or two.
And then there’s another thing I like about the TV-show from the get go: the series fixes a lot of the mistakes the books make.

For instance, in Silkworm there’s a whole car crash-sequences that has no real goal except that it layered the Robin character a bit. Now, inventing a car crash to make a character more interesting is –to me- like making the sky split open and making God appear. There must be a simpler way of doing this.

The TV-show heard my prayers and instead of a car crash it opts from some off-road problem solving. Far more believable and the character development stays intact.
So I guess I can say that, to me, the TV show is far better than the books it is based on. 

With the small exception that intense sequences like fighting or danger are of course less immersive if you see it happen to other people instead of reading the thoughts and prayers.

The TV show
One of the biggest plusses of the TV-show is the way it depicts the words on the screen. For me this involved some corrections of my ‘reading mind’s-eye’. For instance Strike’s office, to me, always looked like a grubby Trainspotting-toilet kind of place. Which is silly of course since, well, who would be willing to hire a detective living in shambles.

The same goes for Strike and Robin. The Strike that I read in the books kept on appearing like an elderly man (Brian Cox maybe). So this love between Strike and Robin (maybe sexual, maybe brother and sister) felt off to me. But now on screen I can believe the tension (and the envy of Robin’s fiancé).
 
I think Tom Burke is well cast as Cormoran Strike. He is as big and impressive as the character demands but also has a quirky sense of humour and an intelligence to top it all off. When he’s thinking you know he’s already three steps ahead in his mind. And in plain conversation his dark eyes hardly ever show the wheels spinning behind them.
 
The same goes for Holliday Grainger as Robin (who has a delicious telephone scene in Cuckoo). The problem with her character, though, is the same as in the books – she hasn’t had her moment to shine yet with a case of her own. This’ll probably happen soon enough. The books are building up to it anyway.

I haven’t read the third book yet.

Then, as I said before the show strips the novels down to the basics. Whole paragraphs are reduced to an equally impressive ‘look’ or ‘cough’. That’s the strength of images. If you do it right you (literally) don’t have to spell it out for the audience.

This gives the show it’s speed. And when a detective show is on a roll those silence moments in time when Strike is thinking things through are the moments the audience is invited to do the same.
 
Visually
Visually Strike manages to appeal to the viewer by showing the uptown and downtown world of London. Silkworm, for instance, has a fabulous architectonical house that, just by looking at the outside, fits in the story marvellously. The inside then is a set decorator’s dream of an odd painting here and there and the tone of light just right.
This very same episode also includes a nice reflection-shot that showcases the skill behind the camera.

So in short: Strike is a great work of television that improves on the books.
Now; I’ve read the first book (got the killer wrong), the second book (pinpointed the killer), but haven’t got ‘round to reading the third one. So I’ll see it next year's time. Time to go sleuthing.

‘Fixing Strike’ a short story or two on writing.

As I was rambling away on my Strike review (above) I noticed that my mind wandered off to what I consider good writing. And what I personally came across when I tried my hand at the craft. So here it is:

I like to write short stories from time to time. I’m not proclaiming that I’m very good at it. But as a hobby, like this blog, it’s fun. However, two things I noticed from time to time I want to share with you:

This isn’t me being an high and mighty ‘author’ or anything. This is just silly old me with a hobby telling a story or two about the things I noticed.

Knowing yourself.
If you like to write and get somewhat good at it you have to do it a lot. Like Stephen King wrote in his marvellous on writing: that doesn’t automatically mean that you are going to win the next nobel prize for literature. But a bad writer can become an average writer and an average writer a good writer –with practice.

But the craft of putting words in order is nothing with a creative idea at its basis!
I’ve read numerous books written by talented but utterly uninspired authors. Whereas, at the same time, I’ve read great stories written in the worst lingo imaginable.

Now, like the tricks you learn by putting words in order; I honestly believe that you can also spark your creativity by doing it a lot.
Step out of your comfort zone every once in a while and write down a terrible person and let him/her get away with the terrible things.
Imagine what an event would do to a person. Don’t just write: pregnant! But have fun with it. Use her pregnancy later on in the story. Create scenarios (her missing the bus because she can’t run, she afraid to fight the villain because of her child…you name it).

Stepping out of your comfort zone is a great way to spark your creativity. That is why, a few years back I wanted to write a story about a serial rapist...

I’ll tell you how I came up with it. I’ve always been a fan of the TV-show Columbo. And one of the defining characteristics of this show is that it shows the ‘how’ the murder was committed right up front. So the show wasn’t about ‘whodunit’ but about how the lieutenant was going to catch the crook.

Framing a story like that gives a lot of screen time to the criminal. No longer is it Hercule Poirot pinpointing the villain in the last five pages. No the whole set-up of the crime and the motivation is crucial to the story.

This is what I wanted to do. I wanted to have a criminal commit his crime and get caught (or get away with it, I hadn’t planned that far ahead yet).
Now, at that time there was a serial rapist on the loose in my hometown. Young women were advised never to travel alone.

And it took quite a long time before this criminal got caught.

And that fascinated me. It inspired me. I wanted to write this story about the vilest sort of criminal I could come up with and now real life was handing me inspiration on a platter.

So I started writing. From the perspective of the villain I wrote a lengthy page in which he prepared himself for his nightly ‘hunt’ –as he called it.

And then I had to stop. This because I noticed quite the flaw in my own person: I simply couldn’t imagine why a person would do such a thing!

I think I speak for the majority of men folk when I say that a woman screaming ‘no don’t’ isn’t the best motivation (maybe I’m naïve, but I'm happy to be). So this whole concept of a guy actually enjoying the resistance is strange to me. I simply cannot imagine what the fun part is for someone  about non-consensual force in intercourse.
So there I had a problem. I had a whole police investigation planned out. The crook staying one step ahead all the time. But I simply couldn’t write the crook or the actual crime because I couldn’t see why he did it. Try as I might.
So I learned a lot about myself during this writing exercise. I  have to stick with villains whose motivation and drives I might actually understand. A good old-fashioned murder or something.
Creativity is fun. Stepping out of you comfort zone is fun. But it isn’t a key to an unlimited magazine of pick-ready notions.

The structure
Quick: name two Agatha Christie novels! Chances are that you named Murder on the Orient Express and And then there were none (I’ll forgo on the original two racist titles).
What is the similarity between those two novels. They are both, when you get down to it, locked room thrillers. Ten or more people in an isolated location. One of them is the killer.

One of the reasons why these two novels are the best known of her repertoire is because this ‘trick’ of an isolated location takes away the common trope of the detective novel.
In any standard detective novel the detective gets a case and starts investigating. In chapter three he questions suspect A. In chapter four suspect B. And so on. In chapter twelve he then points out the culprit.

It’s this structure that made me stop reading the Cormoran Strike novels by Robert Galbraith.
Christie in her two most famous novels takes away the travel time between suspect A and B. They are all in a room together. You can mix things up and question two suspects in one chapter. You can have fun without having to write lengthy parts of the story about how the detective got up in the morning and caught the tube to Whitechapel.

I’m currently writing a story about a serial murderer (murder is something I can comprehend. Rape still a no-no.) and I found myself caught with the detective hopping from place to place investigating suspects.

So I took a leaf out of Christie’s greatest hits and set it all in a small village. Easy. Problem solved.  Now I don’t have to take the tube, bus, airplane or helicopter for all that matter. My detective can interview suspects on the fly.

That’s two things I want to share here: Be creative but keep it manageable for yourself. And, second, when you write stay wary of the structural deadfalls.

I liked writing this. I don’t, really, know why. I guess I’m a sucker for handing out free advice through the anonymity of the Internet (that way it doesn’t feel forced). Maybe I’ll continue this in later chapters with other things I noticed.