So what with all the awesomeness floating around out there today, there’s not always time to sit down and hammer out a full article; for those of you left wanting by this, I apologize. I don’t know how frequent my input may be, so for now I’m just going to give you guys a “wham-bam-thankya-ma’am” of what’s been getting my attention.

Books

• The Prince of Nothing by R. Scott Bakker – It’s the crusades, except in the future, or maybe an alternate past; that doesn’t matter. What does matter is that this trilogy is fantastic in its scope, and though a little heavy-handed at times, has enough blood, sorcery, and gratuitous bits to keep you entertained through most of it. Book one is The Darkness that Comes Before.
• The Book of the New Sun by Gene Wolfe – If you like your sci-fantasy heavy on the “wtf” and light on the mass-market appeal, this set is for you. Set unknown-eras into a possible future, Wolfe tackles everything from theology to philosophy to physics and beyond as he drags his main character – a torturer, complete with violent depictions – from one side of reality to another. The first two novels are collected in one tome called Shadow and Claw.
• Terry Brooks – This man has written a good half-dozen trilogies, any of which can be read separately from the others. Though many claim his work is cliché, the dude has been at it since ’77, and is arguably part of the reason high fantasy still exists. If you want something very elves-with-pointy-ears, pick up The Scions of Shannara; if modern-era demon fighting is more your thing, try out Running with the Demon.

 Games

• Metro 2033 - If you own a 360, you should get this next time you go into GameStop. If you have a computer with Steam – and if you have a PC, you need Steam – just get it now. An FPS set in post-apoc Moscow – or rather, then metro tunnels under said city – this chilling sci-fi tale has it all. Beautiful production values, a too-good-to-be-true story, tight gameplay mechanics, and several moments that will keep you up at night.
• Lara Croft and the Guardian of Light - I hate to be such an XBot, but this Live Arcade action / adventurer has sucked up many hours in my house since its release. With full on-box or online co-op, this little gem will surprise you and whoever you get to play it with you. The graphics are impressive, the puzzles are either thoughtful or oh-$#^%-a-giant-spike-wall intense, and each level has multiple challenges and time-trials to keep you coming back for more.
• Torchlight - A little more PC love, again brought to me by the goodness that is Steam. This Diablo-style loot grabber is all about becoming bigger, meaner, richer, and then selling all that old crap two level-ups later. Created by the same mind that brought us the aforementioned devil-monikered title, this single-player-only experience is the testing platform for an MMO that will launch later on down the line. If my time with this version is any indication, adding the ability to play with friends will render me useless for a month or so.

That’s all I’ve got for now; keep a weather eye on the horizon, as tomorrow should bring similar tidbits from the cinema and comics areas of entertainment.

I think they could have done a better job for a commercial that is going to cost them $2.5 billion to show during the Super Bowl.  At this point I’m sure they’re going for just more of an “oh I’m excited to see a commercial for it” factor than trying to compete with the usual creative commercials seen during the game.  I did however like the split second view of the coaster train on the dragon’s fire.

The bad news,

it is being written by one Eion (Owen) Colfer.

Now for those of you not familiar with Mr. Colfer’s works he wrote the Artemis Fowl series, a thoroughly uninspired youth fiction series that I have read the first three of.

Just to be clear I will be reading and posting a review on this book but I hold very little hope.

P.S. I am a huge fan of Douglas Adams so much so that this article is exactly one hundred and twenty six words long fourty two times three

Kelsey Grammer , it’s not great.

I must tell you that this saddens me greatly as Frasier is not only my favorite sitcom but also one of the best, with out even a single bad season, and only a few episodes that I don’t watch.

After evaluating the pilot I know what the series is missing,

three little words

David Hyde Pierce.

To explain after watching literally hundreds of hours of Sitcoms, I have come to understand that what makes  situation comedy’s are its side characters.

think about it,

would Seinfeld work without George, Kramer, and Elaine.

would Arrested development work without Gob, Buster, and Lindsay.

The answer is no.

This show has a good cast

firstly

Melinda McGraw as Hank’s wife Tilly. Having seen her work on Mad Men as Bobbie Barret,  I can definitely get behind her as an actress.

Nathan Gamble as Hank’s son Henry. If you don’t recognize that name then you must not have seen The Mist (you should)

David Koechner as Hank’s Brother in law Grady. Now I like Mr. Koechner but only in small doses and these doses are small but pointed, just enough to make you hate him and then he is gone.

as for the young actress playing his daughter Maddie,Jordan Hinson

she hasn’t done anything of note yet.

but they do not click and I just hope that they can work together.

All that really needs to happen is for the writing to tighten up and for the characters to become more fully formed.

after re watching the “The Good Son” (Frasier’s pilot) it is amazing how well that cast clicked together.  That kind of magic only happens once in a lifetime, and I am just scared that lightning will not strike twice in the same spot.

I love Frasier and for that reason I will keep watching “Hank”, but I understand the friends of mine that say they have know interest in this show.

Please post any questions as comments and I will answer them to quote Frasier “I’m listening”

Jerimiah Wolfwood

http://robertvsredick.blogspot.com/ has posted the prologue for RATS, enjoy.

A cup of milk tainted with blood. Pazel looked down into the steaming chalice and felt trapped, an actor in a part he never wanted, in a play full of violence and rage. They were waiting for him to drink: the priests, the princes, the three hundred guests in the candlelit shrine. His best friends were waiting, and a few men who wished him dead, and one man who wanted everyone dead and just might get his wish…

To read the rest simply go to the above mentioned site.

For all of you who read my last post on this topic the book will be arriving in early November so my review will be posted then.

As always yours in truth

Jerimiah Wolfwood

This week’s column is going to include a review of the just-aired Syfy remake of Children of the Corn, amongst other goodies.

But first…

The News

*     Fangoria.com has the details of an upcoming piece King has written for the magazine.  Due to be published in two parts (beginning with Fangoria #289, on sale in December), the article — titled “What’s Scary” — is a 7500-word essay: a retrospective critique of the last decade in horror films.

This sounds cool as heck to me; I’m going to pretend it’s a prelude to an updated version of the awesome Danse Macabre.

*     The New York Times has announced TimesTalks LIVE, a series of “intimate discussions with today’s top talents and thinkers.”  These live events will be simulcast in hi-def to movie theatres across North America.  (So far, the only announced participating theatre chain is Cineplex.)

Stephen King will appear as part of the talks with Janet Maslin on November 10, the day Under the Dome is released.

Check the TimesTalks website for ticketing info.

*     It seems to be missing the title and author info, and other such fine print, but the Under the Dome website has the (more or less) final cover:

It’s kinda gorgeous.  You can get a better look at it on the official site.

*     Lilja’s Library has an extremely tantalizing bit of info/speculation.

The section for The Dark Tower at StephenKing.com (King’s official site) has a big banner up top, featuring an illustration of part of a face, with the slogan “Ka Is A Wheel” and “November 2009″ on it.

This could be a teaser for the first issue in the new comics arc “The Dark Tower: The Battle of Jericho Hill,” which hits stores late in November, but Lilja speculates that it may mean a new Dark Tower novel is due to be announced soon.

USA Weekend writer Lorrie Lynch posted the following quote in her blog way back in March:

When we were chatting about his upcoming book Under the Dome, a novel with political subtext out in November, King said he had recently had an idea for a short story. “And then I thought, ‘Well, why don’t I find three more like this and do a book that would be almost like modern fairy tales?’ Then this thing started to add on bits and pieces so I guess it will be a novel.” That idea, according to King, is for a new Dark Tower novel, a continuation of his epic seven-part fantasy/sci-fi/Western series about a lone gunslinger named Roland and his ongoing hunt for the Man in Black. “It’s not really done yet,” King admits of his magnum opus. “Those seven books are really sections of one long uber-novel.”

Well, I just popped a nerd-boner.

Further details as they become available.

*     Lilja’s Library also posted details of a potential remake of “Quitters Inc.,” the King short story which appeared in print in Night Shift and was previously filmed as part of Cat’s Eye.  There is apparently a screenplay being written by Johnathon Schaech “for Samuel L. Jackson.”  Presumably, this means Jackson is attached to star.

Schaech is also the screenwriter of the Tobe Hooper version of From a Buick 8 which may or may not ever get made.  That’s one of my favorite King novels of the past couple of decades, and while I’m interested in any version, I’d like to see someone with a bit more talent box-office clout than Tobe Hooper attached as the film’s director.

*     Don’t forget: “The Dark Tower: The Fall of Gilead” #5 goes on sale this week!

Movie Review: Children of the Corn (2009)

Let me establish some credentials right up front:

I’m sure you can guess by the simlpe fact that I’m writing a Stephen King-related column that I’m, well, a Stephen King fan.  I have been since roughly 1987, and I’m primarily a fan of his written work.

That said, I also take a big-time interest in the movies, to the extent that I own every single one of them on DVD … except for the last couple of seasons of The Dead Zone, and those only because I keep forgetting about them. 

Heck, I even own the movies that are only tangentially part of King’s canon, such as The Mangler Reborn and Sometimes They Come Back For More and Creepshow III (still haven’t been able to force myself to actually watch that one).  Those movies are so far removed from King’s source material that it makes The Lawnmower Man look like the model of fidelity.

From all that, you can probably surmise that yes, in fact, I do own the entire Children of the Corn series.  Every last gobsmackin’ one of ‘em.  They’re all terrible, from the original right up to Revelation, but they’re all sitting right there on my shelf nevertheless, and I even watch them once every five years or so.

I do not say this lightly: the remake of Children of the Corn may even worse than the rest of the series.

It’s definitely worse than the original, and I can think of a couple of the sequels I may have enjoyed more, and frankly, there’s not a single one of the sequels I can immediately disqualify from contention as being better.

This thing is fucking awful.

This is no surprise, of course, but I’d hoped that somehow, some way, just maybe it could at least be passable.  Nope.  Not even vaguely.

The remake is directed by a fellow named Donald P. Borchers, who produced the original Children of the Corn as well as other such luminous titles as Meatballs 4 and Leprechaun 2. 

As a director, Borchers’ only other work consists of the Paul LeMat film Grave Secrets and Perfect Fit, which co-starred David Greico, who I am going to assume is Richard Greico’s shiftless brother.

Borchers “co-wrote” the screenplay with Stephen King himself; apparently, this collaboration consisted of Borchers revising King’s never-used screenplay for his own short story.  Hopefully, this was a heavy revision, as most, if not all, of the dialogue is awful.

The original story, of course, is not necessarily a classic, but it’s got style and tone going for it.  This movie has none of those things.  What it has is a lame attempt at social relevancy, coming via a poorly-considered Vietnam allegory which clearly wants to be an Iraq allegory.  However, since Borchers also wanted to be able to claim on DVD bonus features that this film was more faithful to the story than the original film, he insists on setting the film circa 1975, complete with ’00s-style interracial marriage and ’00s-style sundress.

Speaking of that sundress, it is occupied by Kandyse McClure, a greatly attractive woman who did some good work on the television series Battlestar Galactica.  She also played Sue in the underrated television remake of Carrie, so she’s hardly a stranger to appearing in King-related films made by people just because they owned remake rights.

McClure is stupendously awful in this movie, and as much as I want to lay sole blame for that at the feet of Borchers, I just can’t do it.  Even if he and his editor purposefully picked only McClure’s worst takes to use, it’d be on her to explain how she could be this bad in a movie.

To be fair, her character is written to be as unpleasantly shrill a woman who has ever existed on-screen.  And to be even more fair, this comes directly from King’s original story.

The key to making this sort of unpleasant marriage seem realistic onscreen is to … well, to play it realistically.  McClure fails miserably at this goal.  Her co-star, David Anders, fails, too, but not quite as miserably; this may be due only to not having to be as shrill as McClure is called upon to be.

Instead, he gets saddled with what surely must be one of THE worst lines of dialogue ever written: “Put that in your God and smoke it,” he says at one point.  It’s been too long since I’ve read the King story to remember if this comes from it, and I have no way of knowing if — should that not be the case — King might still have penned it as part of his original screenplay.  I really, really hope not.  Can we please get some sort of verification that this was a Borchers line?

Even worse, if you can believe that, is the portrayal of Isaac, the juvenile prophet and leader of the cult of children.  He is played here by Preston Bailey, whom you might recognize as Cody on Dexter.  (Then again, you might not.  I didn’t; IMDB helped me out there.)  Bailey is beyond awful.  Watching him in this movie is like what I imagine watching a production of the screenplay at your son’s elementary school to be like.  He’s that bad.  I don’t blame Bailey for this.  No child ought to ever be held accountable for his performance in a movie; that is something the director is in charge of sculpting, and Borchers clearly has no idea how to do so.

And somehow, Bailey isn’t the worst of the bunch!  There are other kids who sound as if they could get their lines out only by repeating what Borchers — or, more likely, some hapless and unpaid PA — was whispering to them from slightly off-camera.

The only cast member whose performance almost works is Daniel Newman, who plays Malachi.  He’s about a decade too old for the role, and he’s not good, but he’s passable, and in this movie, that qualifies as a legitimate achievement; so I assume, using the transitive property, that he must be a talent to look out for.

There is not one single scare in this movie, nor does one single creepy thing happen during the entire film.  I would, in fact, go so far as to say that there is not one single moment that works, even within the microcosm of the singular moment in which it is taking place.

In a world in which The Mangler Reborn exists, I cannot honestly say that it is THE worst King-related film ever made … but it’s close.

Movies really don’t get much worse than this one.

Story Review: “UR”

Spoilers ahead!

This weekend, I finally got ’round to reading the Kindle-exclusive short story “UR,” which I found to be vintage King.

“UR,” for those of you unaware of it, is a short story King released exclusively through Amazon.com for the Kindle.  The Kindle, for those of you unaware of it, is a portable device used for purchasing, downloading, and reading e-books.

“UR,” therefore, is available only to Kindle owners.  That ain’t me, but luckily, I’ve got friends more up-to-tech-date than I.

There’s one big suprise in “UR” that I don’t want to give away even with a spoiler warning, and I won’t.  However, here’s the short/medium version of the story: a college English lit professor has a breakup with his basketball-coach girlfriend, who at one point has chided him for reading books instead of, like everyone else, reading off of the computer.  As a pathetic attempt to try and win her back — and also to impress his students and colleagues — he buys a Kindle from Amazon.

What he receives is indeed a Kindle, but it’s of a color the Kindle is not manfactured in, and when he turns it on, he discovers a section for “UR FUNCTIONS.”  This leads him to a function which allows him to purchase novels from alternate realities that do not exist in his own: Hemingway novels that his Hemingway never wrote, for example.

From there, things — as you might expect — begin to get creepy.

Personally, I enjoyed the hell out of this story.  I liked the characters okay, but the real draw was the situation: that otherwordly pink Kindle and its untold billions of novels nobody could ever know about.

I also enjoy the fact that while King’s story can be seen as product placement, it’s product placement in which the placement is available only to people who already own the product.  And for those people, the product becomes a somewhat creepier product than it might have been before they read the placement.

Leave it to King to create a commercial that makes people slightly afraid of the thing they already bought.

Most of the reasons I like the story, though, fall under the heading of “I don’t want to spoil that.”

I’m sure, despite its current exclusivity, that the story will eventually appear in one of King’s story collections.  That’ll be a good thing; it’s very solid King, and could rather nicely be a part of, say, Nightmares & Dreamscapes.

That’s all for this week.  Hopefully, next week will include nothing so dire as that goddam Children of the Corn remake.

Might be weekly, might be monthly … either way, today I’m starting a new column devoted to one of my favorite subjects: the many works and the wider world of Stephen King.

First up, the news, and I’ll go ahead and cop to this straight out of the gate: most, if not all, of my Stephen King news comes from one place and one place only: Lilja’s Library.  This site all about the World of Stephen King is a gu-huh-REAT source of info on all things King.  Rarely does a day pass without it getting a vist from my browser.

And now, the news…

First off, the man himself, Stephen King, turns 62 today.  Happiest of birthdays from your #1,987 fan!

The official site for Under the Dome went live last week.  There ain’t much to it for now, but you can find a sneak peek at one part of the novel’s cover (with the other parts due to be revealed soon).  Video and audio downloads are said to be coming soon, as well.

Stuff of a considerably more exciting nature can be found over at StephenKing.com, where the author has put up a downloadable excerpt of roughly sixty pages from The Cannibals.  Hardcore Kingphiles will know that The Cannibals is a lengthy, unfinished novel King worked on (and subsequently abandoned) while filming Creepshow.  Years later, King resurrected the work, finished it, and is now releasing it under the title — tah-dah! — Under the Dome.

I downloaded and printed the exceprt, but I’ve been wrestling with the question of whether I want to read it now or wait to read it until after having read the thousand or so pages of Under the Dome.  I’m leaning strongly toward waiting.  The idea of unpublished excerpts seems somewhat similar to the idea of deleted scenes from a movie: they’ll probably mean a lot more once I’ve seen the movie. 

Also, I’d kinda like to come at Under the Dome as untainted by expectation as possible.  I knew practically nothing about Duma Key when I sat down to read it, and I found that to be an exciting way to read that excellent novel.  To the extent I can repeat that success, I’d love to do so.  It’s always possible, though, that I’ll cave and give The Cannibals a read, and if that happens, you can expect a review during the next column.

Another item of interest: King will have a narrative poem titled (appropriately enough) ”The Bone Church” in the November issue of Playboy.

Wrapping up the news with a reminder can be fun, and here’s one: don’t forget that the remake of Children of the Corn can be seen on the Syfy Channel this Saturday night.  Here’s hoping it ends up better than Syfy’s typical Saturday-night fare, but I’ll be honest … I’m not optimistic.  The presence of Kandyse McClure gives me a bit of hope, though.

Moving on, I’m going to end this inaugural installment of Kingdom with a brief look back at one of the — let’s face it — lesser works from King’s canon: Thinner, the 1984 Richard Bachman novel which ended King’s pseudonymous other-life.

The reason I’m looking back at Thinner is that I’m in the (years-long) process of re-reading all of King’s novels.  I’m working my way through them chronologically, and this just happens to be the one I’ve finished most recently.  It’s an inauspicious start for this column, I guess, but hey, whattaya gonna do?

Truth is, it’s not a bad novel, and certainly not as bad as I’d remembered.  It’s been quite a while since I read it, and I think my memory was tainted somewhat by the truly dreadful Tom Holland film adaptation.  Yikes, does that thing suck a high hard one.

The novel is nowhere near as inept, and there are moments of true excellence.  The antagonist — Taduz Lemke, an ancient Magyar Gypsy whose retributive powers apparently run deep and cold — remains an effective, chilling villain, and the final, Twilight Zone-ish scene is a knockout.

The whole thing suffers, though, from what I perceive to be a lack of focus: it’s a morality play in some regards, but what ought to be the case — us realizing that Billy Halleck and his partners in neglect really and truly have it coming — never truly takes flight.  I think what King wanted the novel to be is a Reagan-era tale of the well-to-do oppressing the less fortunate members of society.  The good guys in this story really are the Gypsys, and Bachman/King could probably have pushed that angle a bit harder than he did.  As is, it’s a bit like a hollowed-out shell of a morality play moreso than a morality tale proper.

Part of the problem is that the final, say, third of the novel gets bogged down in Halleck’s relationship with a mobster, Richard Ginelli, who comes in to assist the cursed lawyer.  King is obviously greatly interested in this relationship, and he writes it pretty well.  We’re obviously supposed to, against our better judgment, like and respect Ginelli and what he is capable of doing, but at the same time see that in calling him in, Halleck has damned himself again.

It’s all there, it just doesn’t quite get taken advantage of in a satisfactory manner, at least not for my tastes.  However, the novel held up better than I’d expect it to have done, and while it might not make a great meal, it’ll at least give you something to chew on.

Until next time, make sure that if your wife is giving you a handjob in the car, you keep your eyes on the road.

this gives me little to no hope for book four which still has no release date.

It has come to my attention that The Rats and the Ruling Sea released in Great Britain a couple of weeks ago in such I have ordered a copy and it will be arriving within six to ten business days after which I will read it and post a review then.

As always yours in truth

Jerimiah

Wolfwood

Rick Smith: My second question is, without asking for spoilers, will the issue of how the transition from Knights of the Word to Druids of Paranor as protectors of the lands be dealt with in much detail? I had hoped that we would see this explained in Gypsy Morph, but other than there being only 2 remaining Knights, I did not see much. Perhaps the Lady did not survive the holocaust at the end of the book? Thank you for your time.

Terry Brooks replies: Patience, Rick. All things in good time. As a matter of fact, when the next Genesis book opens, there is only one Knight of the Word left and he doesn’t call himself that anymore. The Knights have pretty much faded into the past, so the transition will not be a rapid, sudden one. That’s all I am going to say on that. As for detail, you will get it, but only over the course of the remaining books and not all at once. As for the Lady, hmmmmm….

This goes along well with my line of thought that the Druids are the successors of the Knights of the Word and that Brona was possible being driven by the void.

It is quite an interesting theory that Brona, and Rimmer Dall were being guided by the same forces that we saw John Ross fight in the Word & the Void trilogy.

As for the possibility of the return of Hawk I see very little chance of it. My main hope is to see the founding of the house Ohmsford, the House Leah, and the Ravenlock House as these are very much important to the universe of Shannara.

It is my suspicion that the “one Knight of the Word” that Mr. Brooks mentions is in fact Galaphile the disendent of the Elf Sil, and Knight of the Word Logan Tom. As Galaphile was the first Druid.

After looking at the map in my companion I think that the place they are living in is in fact the area around Paranor this would make since in that it is in a valley and would add a sort of holiness to the site that the early druids would have felt was significant being at the middle of the country.

I found this map on a site called Shady side of Shannara.

as always yours in truth

Jerimiah

Wolfwood