Title: Firefly Rain
Author: Richard Dansky
Publisher: Wizards of the Coast: Discoveries
Year Published: 2008

First Sentence: I remember a night when I was six years old the way some folks remember their first kiss.

Richard Dansky’s first original novel, Firefly Rain, is a wonderful tale that follows the tradition of the southern gothic ghost story. And yet it’s not just about ghosts. It’s about relationships, memory, and family. The plot, in brief, is fairly straight forward: A young man, Jacob Logan, has returned to the small town he grew up to collect his thoughts after living and thriving in business. Both his parents have died, but he still has the old family house to stay in. The trouble starts almost the moment he moves back into the house he grew up in. Elements of the supernatural, local legends and myths, and his own repressed memories all combine to weave a mystery that slowly becomes a life-or-death struggle for Logan to solve.

Though the plot is straightforward enough, what stands out most in Firefly Rain is Dansky’s absolutely magnificent pacing. The build he structures from the very first page is simply masterful, and it infects every element of his story. Even the dual love stories are constructed and entwined in such a way that, when they finally intersect, they build off each other rather than play against each other. As Dansky continues to weave his story elements together, the relationships between these elements is what creates the mounting feeling of fear. So while Firefly Rain isn’t really a horror novel, it is a thrilling and often times chilling read.

Another of Dansky’s strengths is his creation of setting and place. True to the southern gothic tradition, the various places that Firefly Rain is set in are as much a character Logan or Carl (the caretaker hired on to manage the family homestead in Logan’s absence). Logan’s house has a life all it’s own, as do various parts of his property and the little town of Maryfield itself. Through the relationships Logan develops with these places, they become an increasingly active and important part of the primary storyline, and the secondary storylines are totally dependent upon the various locations.

There are a few shortcomings to Firefly Rain however. Most importantly, it starts out amazingly slow. The first dozen pages creep along as introductions are made and all the basic elements are put into place. Though Dansky’s pacing is evident even this early, there was just barely enough going on to keep me interested. For the most part it’s all establishing information that Dansky builds upon and refers back to throughout the book. And yet there is a distinct lack of information about the immediate past of Logan. There is precious little backstory given, and the reader is left to build a character from scratch through his actions from the start of the novel on. Normally, this would be a wonderful choice, but without a solid foundation of the big city nature Logan has developed since he left his small hometown, it is difficult to see how much he changes, if at all, as the story progresses. This is particularly important when we get to the final scenes and the eventual obligatory confrontation between the townsfolk and Logan.

Which is one reason the ending fell terribly flat for me. It wasn’t just that I saw it coming a mile a way, which I did, or the loose ends Dansky left dangling, which he does. The primary storyline is, of course, completely resolved. But the secondary storylines are left dangling and feeling incomplete. Specifically, the final outcome of the major relationships, which Dansky crafted so wonderfully throughout the story, are left with no solid resolution because the reader was never really given a firm starting point for Logan’s character. Without that foundation, it’s difficult to see exactly how much Logan has changed over the course of the book. It’s almost as if Dansky were trying to leave himself an out for a possible sequel or prequel, building his own version of Castle Rock or Yoknapatawpha County.

Though it has its problems, Firefly Rain is a solid introductory novel, and, due to the pacing and structure, a really enjoyable read. It’s wonderfully crafted, and the characterizations, for the most part, are explored through charming and believable relationships. I’ll be keeping an eye out for more original Dansky titles in the future.

• » Comments (0)

Film: Wanted
Director: Timur Bekmambetov
Screenwriters: Michael Brandt, Derek Haas, Chris Morgan
Primary Cast: James McAvoy, Morgan Freeman, Angelina Jolie
Tag Line: Choose your destiny.

Review Summary: If you leave your brain in the glove box, then you might just enjoy this one!

Just to make sure we all start out on the same page, Wanted is absolutely, positively, beyond any shadow of a doubt, not a good movie. The characters are cardboard cutouts, the story both socially and morally reprehensible, and the screenplay itself so full of holes that it was likely used as the target during McAvoy’s firearm training sessions (before he had a chance to read it). All that said, Timur Bekmambetov directs the action scenes with enthusiasm (to say the least), and they are what bring any kind of redeeming cinematic value to the film and make this an enjoyable summer “check-your-brain-at-the-door” kind of flick.

Bekmambetov, a Russian filmmaker whom I was previously unfamiliar with, shows great promise as far as the Hollywood action genre goes. He seems to know exactly what the formulaic studio execs want: big names, big boobs, and big explosions. And while his delivery of the big boobs quotient is more Wanting than Wanted, the other two items he delivers in spades. More importantly, I think, is that his work on Wanted shows quite clearly where his primary influences lie. In particular, while the opening sequences go echo the Wachowski brothers’ Matrix saga, the action scenes in general reflect a more direct influence of the master of the modern action film, John Woo. Bekmambetov took a tremendously weak script and salvaged it the best way he knew how. He gave the summer blockbuster audience exactly what they expected… blood, bullets, and just enough story to keep the audience in their seats for the full 110 minutes.

But Bekmambetov was not the only one hampered by the script. Considering how many times the writing called for the actors to go against their own characters, it’s remarkable that the stereotypical characters were somehow classic enough that they each managed to pull off a respectable performance. Perhaps the single largest character travesty belonged to Morgan Freeman, who went from a member of the intelligentsia to a common gangbanger in a single sentence. Much of this could potentially be laid at the feet of Bekmambetov’s, as there was little evidence that he is what is called “an actor’s director,” but given how poor the script truly is, that would be tremendously unfair. Suffice it to say that while Wanted isn’t the vehicle that any of these actors likely hoped for, neither need they be embarrassed by the performances they turned in.

And thus I come to the script itself. There will undoubtedly be some spoilers below, so let me sum up my impressions for those of you who don’t want to read them. Wanted is perhaps the most ineffective screenplay of the summer. The script itself is worse than that of The Happening, and you all know how I felt about that film. The only thing that saves it from utter mockery is Bekmambetov’s direction of the action sequences.

Now, on to the spoilage so I can really pick apart where the major issues are.

First and foremost, the script is built upon a rock-solid and proven three act structure:

Act 1: Unlikely hero is discovered and recruited.
Act 2: Unlikely hero is trained to be a badass.
Act 3: Unlikely hero opens up a can of whoop-ass on assorted badguys.

That should sound pretty familiar. From Star Wars to The Matrix we saw, and for the most part loved, action movies that relied on this particular framework. Where Wanted fails, and fails mightily, is in the details of this structure. Lucas saw the problems in the details and expanded his saga to three films. As far as I know, the Wachowski brothers started at three films. By trying to cram that kind of structure into 110 minutes, Brandt, Haas and Morgan created a convoluted nightmare for themselves where, in the end, nothing made even the least bit of sense. They asked the audience to take such leaps of faith with their storyline that it was never a matter of “willing suspension of disbelief,” but rather “required suspension of disbelief.” So much was left undeveloped that there was simply nothing solid for the audience to hang on to.

Let’s start with, as I call it, the Loom of Doom. In and of itself, this is a really interesting idea. It has elements of the supernatural and mysticism and even some loose religious symbolism. It harkens to the fantasy stories of Robert Jordan, Ursula K. Le Guin, and so many others. But it goes nowhere! It is given only the most cursory of explanations and the viewer is left thinking… huh? A Binary Loom of Doom that spits out the names of people who need to die? Huh?! How?! Why?! This is a major element of the story, and no explanation is given about… well… anything! If it is indeed a 2000 year old device, how did it get to Chicago? And were those computer monitors it was hooked up to? Why? And how the hell did people read binary 2000 years ago. Nothing about the Loom of Doom makes any sense at all.

Next up would be characters assassinating themselves. The best example is Sloan when all of a sudden he abandons the speech patterns of a romantic academician (”Within the fabric of this world, every life hangs by a thread. We are that thread - a fraternity of assassins with the weapons of fate”) and adopts the patter of a stereotypical gang-banger (”kill this mutha-fucka right here!”). It is a break in character so out of place that it elicits laughter from the audience in a scene where the protagonist’s life hangs in the balance. It’s a scene that should be filled with tension, but the dialogue is completely inappropriate for the characters.

The third issue is the love interest. There isn’t one. Never mind the fact that Angelna Jolie is in the film (why would you not put a love interest in your story?). Neo had Trinity. Luke, and then Han, had Leia. Why wouldn’t you have at the very least the potential of a Wesley-Fox hookup? There were moments when it seemed like it was supposed to be there but got lost in the editing. Regardless though, without that love interest, the overall effect of Fox’s death at the end of the film is almost completely benign. It has no effect on Wesley’s decision making process, and no effect on Wesley emotionally at all; therefore it has no effect on the audience.

Lastly, any time a single question can disrupt your entire plotline, there is a pretty substantial problem. For example…

Question: Why does Wesley give a rat’s ass about a father who walked out on him when he was seven days old?

That’s the big one. The entire scripts is built around that single question, and yet never are we given any kind of indication that Wesley even misses his father, or believes things would have turned out differently had his father been around. We never learn anything substantial about his parentage at all, in fact, not even from pictures in his cubicle or apartment. Even his mother is left a mystery. His parents have little to no presence in his daily life, yet for some reason he is hell-bent on avenging the murder of a man that a complete and utter stranger says is his father. The premise of the film is shaky from the outset, and that brings into doubt each and every element that addresses the premise even indirectly.

And one last question: When did Wesley have time to attach a bajillion tiny bombs to a bajillion tiny rats?

Sounds funny, but really, when did he have the time? That’s not an overnight project he undertook. It was so involved, in fact, that his father… you know, the one who (walked out on him) came up with the plan, never bothered to implement it in order to save his son (and, as it turns out, his own neck). It doesn’t even matter that it is the most ridiculous scene in recent memory. It is just so “out there” that the only possible reaction to it is one of laughter. This “plan” was something that should have been in a Mel Brooks film, not an action film that begged to be taken seriously.

Wanted is a film of omission. It wants to more than it is, and overall the film suffers more from what isn’t there than what is there. What is there is solid, summer entertainment. It’s a no-holds-barred action thrill ride that lasts a bit too long for it’s own good, but doesn’t leave an overtly bad taste in your mouth when you leave the theatre. What isn’t there is what would have made this a great film. Character development, plot details, and a little more common sense would have made Wanted a film to be remembered longer than a few days. As it is, when it comes on TNT in a year, I’ll likely end up tuning in because I won’t remember ever having seen it in the theatre.

• » Comments (2)

Program: In Plain Sight
Network: USA
Creator: David Maples
Cast: Mary McCormack, Fred Weller, Nichole Hiltz, Lesley Ann Warren, Paul Ben-Victor, Todd Warren, Christian de la Fuente

I eagerly anticipated the arrival of In Plain Sight form the first commercial I saw. USA has earned big props with me for their original programming. The Big Four could learn a lot from shows like Monk, Psych, and Burn Notice. Perhaps my expectations were raised a bit high from those three shows, but, after the first five episodes, I am torn about In Plain Sight. I want to like it, but I think, in general, it suffers a bit with an identity crisis.

The concept is fairly straight forward. Mary Shannon (Mary McCormack) and Marshall Mann (Fred Weller) are US Marshals assigned to the Witness Protection Program. They handle the lives of the guilty and the innocent alike who have agreed to work with the US Government in exchange for protection from whoever it is that wants them dead. As a matter of course, this means changing identities for the subjects, and the inability of the Marshals to reveal what it is they do to anyone, even their own families.

On the surface, the concept seems to lend itself quite well to episodic television, and there would seem to be a great fit for the comedy-drama angle that USA has become so very good at. Unlike Burn Notice, however, In Plain Sight seems to be really struggling with itself as it hunts for just the right blend of comedy and drama. Where Burn Notice flows from moment to moment seamlessly, In Plain Sight seems to arm wrestle with itself to see which form will have dominance on a scene by scene basis, and the outcome is usually determined by which actor takes the lead in the scene.

McCormack seems to really struggle with the deeper moments her character faces. She (she being her character, Mary Shannon) has some intimacy issues that drive the people around her nuts, yet McCormack doesn’t seem to be able to really hook into the more serious moments with her family and boyfriend. About the only emotions she plays consistently well are anger and bitterness, and she seems to be embroiled in one or the other about 70% of the time. It makes for some painfully slow television in between the action scenes.

Weller on the other hand plays the transitions from comedy to drama extremely well. When he takes the lead in a scene, which isn’t nearly often enough, the scene almost always succeeds behind his characterization. He is, without a doubt, carrying the show on his shoulders at the moment, and the writers seem to have rewarded him already by increasing not only his presence on camera, but his importance to the lead character, Mary Shannon.

If In Plain Sight can find its groove, it could easily be another Burn Notice (which is, perhaps, the best TV had to offer on any station in the past year, and why I compare to it so readily). As it stands, it’s average fare at best, and certainly not up to the standards that USA has come to be known for. For now, though, I’ll keep watching, as the episodes have grown progressively stronger since the pilot. It’s the potential I am tuning in for more than anything else, and as long as that potential appears to be slowly materializing, I think the production team is on the right track.

• » Comments (2)

Title: S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Shadow of Chernobyl
Platform: PC
Publisher: THQ
Developer: GSC Game World

Review Summary: I should have liked this game. It’s gorgeous. It’s detailed. It’s, at times, downright frightening. For some reason, it is also boring as hell.

On paper, STALKER is a game I should love. It has everything I normally look for: High concept storyline, open-ended design, first-person POV, stunning environments, a high degree of interactivity, and an AI that is actually intelligent. Usually, in a single game I can find 3 of these items, sometimes 4. To have them all, or at least to attempt to have them all, is ambitious indeed. And yet perhaps that is where my issues with STALKER begin. On paper, all of these elements are present. In production, however, there are things that hold back the game from being something that I lose my self in for hours at a time. Before I go any further, I need to mention right up front that I didn’t finish the game. I tried twice to force myself through it, but couldn’t bring myself to. I fully intend on going back and trying again, but not for a while. I need a break from the boredom.

The story itself is wonderful in concept. It’s a kind of alternate history dystopia that focuses on the effects of the Chernobyl reactor explosion of 1986. The concept itself has the potential to be entrancing, and the possibilities for design and conflict appear nearly limitless. The problem comes when the story is being presented. It is clumsy, vague, and, in the end, quite linear in its construction. There are a limited number of diversions, but for the most part it’s all about following directions and moving from point A to point B when you are told to do so. The interface itself is rather clunky, and the use of the PDA for communication and data storage is pedestrian at best. There are numerous bugs in the PDA display mode, and the vast amount of information that gets gathered becomes particularly unwieldy as a direct result of these bugs.

The world is broken into zones which load separately as you pass from one area to another. The main storyline takes you back and forth through these zones several times, and while they don’t reset themselves, they will sometimes repopulate with new bandits and wildlife. This is actually one of the more impressive features of STALKER which will be discussed more in depth later. The potential for an impressively expansive gameworld is defeated by, once again, the linear nature of the main quest. There are simply not enough substantial side-quests and diversions to take advantage of the tremendous effort GSC put into developing their world.

The environments are the true strengths of STALKER. The world-building is some of the best I have seen, bar none, and the AI tied to wildlife and random encounters is top notch. Creeping along a path through the woods, it isn’t uncommon to hear the pop of distant gunfire as opposing factions wander too close to each other. Wound a wild animal, and it may well attempt to scurry away in fear rather than just continue to charge or fight. And if it does scurry away, the noise it makes changes to reflect its fear and pain. The attention to detail in the environmentals allow for an unusually immersive experience and is the primary reason I’ll be giving STALKER at least one more try before I put it away for good.

When it comes down to actual encounters, I have heard complaints about a buggy AI. I didn’t experience any bugs myself, but I do think that it is fairly uninspired AI at best. Enemy targets don’t seem to try and find cover, but rather stand and shoot, then wander a bit and shoot some more. More annoying than anything else, they tend to stay at maximum distance unless their event script or the quest has them moving to a specific area. Again, nothing inherently wrong with this type of AI, but it becomes predictable very quickly and really limits gameplay, especially early in the game when weaponry and ammunition are so limited in effectiveness.

Overall, I think STALKER has a ton of potential that it just didn’t live up to. It isn’t a bad game by any means, but there is just so much that is so close to being so good! It tries very hard to be both a FPS and an RPG and it almost makes it. I played it primarily the way I would an FPS. Hopefully, when I have more time to sit down and really play the game, focusing as much on the RPG elements as on the FPS elements, I’ll find the game I thought I was sitting down to. Twice.

• » Comments (0)