Kubrick’s Game is the first adult-aimed novel from children’s author Derek Taylor Kent, who writes the Scary School series under the pen name Derek the Ghost. The author reached out to me about reading and reviewing the book, which was a great honor. I’m not sure if he approached me because of the book reviews on my site or the film reviews, but either way would make sense since Kubrick’s Game truly is a book for cinephiles.
Molded in the fashion of books like Ready Player One and The Da Vinci Code, the story involves an elaborate and mysterious treasure hunt based on clues hidden in the films of Stanley Kubrick.
When I recently described the book I was currently reading to my family, they said “that’s perfect for you”. And that’s mostly true. Except…
I am not the world’s biggest Kubrick fan. I have nothing but respect for the undeniable talent of the man and extremely little patience for his method of filmmaking. He was a master of shot composition and a visionary. I acknowledge without hesitation the indelible impact of his films; they are gorgeous, wholly unique and are completely stuffed with content ripe for analysis. But I never really went in for film analysis. I find much of his work slow, dull and pretentious. The absurdly methodical “film fifty takes and see what happens” approach with ambling, overlong shots badly in need of editing defined a generation of filmmakers and is directly responsible for the “director as auteur” nonsense that we are still stuck with.
I do not know if part of the author’s intent with Kubrick’s Game was to cultivate love of the filmmaker, but the book absolutely sent me back to the oeuvre to see if I hadn’t misjudged them. (Jury’s still out on that – I’ll let you know.)
The story is jam-packed with facts about filmmaking in general and Kubrick in particular, a sure sign that the author has put in time in La-La Land. I found the story most engaging during these moments, with film restoration specialists and aspiring directors discussing the craft.
The protagonist of Kubrick’s Game is Shawn Hagan, a promising film student who becomes central to a complicated game that the legendary filmmaker has engineered to take place some years after his death. Hagan is an introverted and talented young man, somewhere on the Autism spectrum, and it’s his journey that I found a little wanting. Possibly because the author is trying to convey Shawn’s difficulty with reading people, some of the plot points are delivered forcefully, without any subtlety. Other characters in the story act with transparent motives, but the story takes a long time to bring the main character up to speed. Again, I believe this is done for effect, an intentional representation of Shawn’s struggles to digest social clues, but this style of leaving obvious hints and spelling things out very slowly is also a hallmark of writing to a younger audience, and I can’t help but wonder if that is a carryover from Kent’s main writing experience.
The only way in which the book suffers from this deliberate writing style is in the length; as engaging as the story was, I thought it could use a sizable haircut. But again, perhaps this is an homage to Kubrick…
Lest my criticism of the feel of the story give you the wrong impression, let me be clear – I really enjoyed Kubrick’s Game. It is a well-thought out and unique story, brimming with details sure to spur the imagination and interest of fans of the director and possibly create some new devotees. While I did find the writing style somewhat exposition heavy, that sort of comes with the territory, and doesn’t detract from the imaginative hunt that drives the tale.
Possibly more interesting to fans of Kubrick, conspiracy theorists and codebreakers, the quality of the story is engaging for all and make Kubrick’s Game easy to recommend…
[schema type=”book” url=”http://www.derektaylorkent.com/work/#/kubricksgame/” name=”Kubrick’s Game” description=”Shawn Hagan, a college film student obsessed with legendary filmmaker Stanley Kubrick, discovers hidden clues in his movies which lead him on a harrowing quest toward a mysterious treasure that Kubrick left behind. Endangered by sinister groups on the same quest, Shawn has no choice but to claim the prize first because in the wrong hands … “It has the power to change the course of history.”” author=”Derek Taylor Kent” publisher=”Evolved Publishing” pubdate=”2016-09-24″ isbn=”1622534522″ ebook=”yes” paperback=”yes” hardcover=”yes” ]
Gotta love John Scalzi. He really excels at the “big idea” stories, which practically is its own genre in science fiction. Nearly all of his works (or at least all of the ones I’ve read) feature some interesting concept made possible through imagined technology, then spend the rest of the time impressing you with the reality involved. It’s really remarkable – it’s as though his books are straightforward fiction that simply require you to make one leap of faith at the outset. Works every time…
The premise needs to be really good in order to make the whole thing gel, of course. That leap of faith needs to stick the landing. But I haven’t been disappointed with the “big idea” yet. So then it’s merely a matter of delivering the rest of the story, and Scalzi is best in class in dialogue and interactions.
In this audio-only short story, the execution works perhaps a little better than some of the full-length novels I’ve read. That’s because I really have only one criticism of his books, one that I didn’t really pick up on until I’d read several. Stated simply, the protagonists seem to have it all their own way. While they are always put in difficult and extreme situations, they all seem to roll with the punches with a somewhat unbelievable grace.
Though I haven’t yet reviewed them, I’ve recently read Agent to the Stars and Fuzzy Nation. These followed the pattern I noted in Lock In and Redshirts. I haven’t touched the Old Man’s War yet, having no appetite for starting a huge series, so it may prove entirely different, but thus far the only flaw I’ve found in these novels is lack of suspense. The main characters don’t seem all that fallible. They make assumptions that prove to be right nearly all the time and there’s never any real concern that they won’t end up on top.
Despite the aforementioned inevitability of success, the tale of Dispatcher Tony Valdez is a great one. The “big idea” in The Dispatcher is that for completely unknown reasons, at some point in our near future, humans who are murdered suddenly find themselves safely returned to life back in their homes. Most of the time. And there are rules, but they aren’t readily known. And only murder victims need apply…
What I’ve written here is not a spoiler – I’ve gone into less detail than the publisher’s blurb, even. But I feel wrong saying too much here. True, when Audible announced the novella, they included the set-up and I read it when I placed my pre-order. But that was a few months ago, and I didn’t even refresh my memory as to what the story was about before pressing play. And I’m very glad for that.
It can be so refreshing to just start a book without any preconceived notions about what you’re about to read. You have to learn something about books before deciding to read them, of course, but it seems a shame in many ways. I used to love going to a record store and selecting albums from groups I’d never heard, but solely based on the art or the titles. I had some idea of the style of music, of course, but little else. The main difference here being that with an album I could know within an hour at most whether my choice was wise. I can’t afford to start grabbing books at random, certainly not at the speed I read…
So I’m not going to tell you any more about The Dispatcher, only that it was a fantastic tale. Similar in style to Lock In, it’s a brisk read (listen) and very enjoyable. The narration by Zachary Quinto was perfect for the story. All of the previous audiobooks I’ve heard from the author have been performed by Wil Wheaton, but I like the choice of Quinto here. He has an entirely different style and conveys emotions that match the feel of The Dispatcher. I eagerly look forward to more audio performances from him.
Oh, and The Dispatcher is free until November 2, 2016, so get on that train…
[schema type=”book” url=”http://www.audible.com/dispatcher” name=”The Dispatcher” description=”Zachary Quinto – best known for his role as the Nimoy-approved Spock in the recent Star Trek reboot and the menacing, power-stealing serial killer, Sylar, in Heroes – brings his well-earned sci-fi credentials and simmering intensity to this audio-exclusive novella from master storyteller John Scalzi. One day, not long from now, it becomes almost impossible to murder anyone – 999 times out of a thousand, anyone who is intentionally killed comes back. How? We don’t know. But it changes everything: war, crime, daily life. Tony Valdez is a Dispatcher – a licensed, bonded professional whose job is to humanely dispatch those whose circumstances put them in death’s crosshairs, so they can have a second chance to avoid the reaper. But when a fellow Dispatcher and former friend is apparently kidnapped, Tony learns that there are some things that are worse than death and that some people are ready to do almost anything to avenge a supposed wrong. It’s a race against time for Valdez to find his friend before it’s too late…before not even a Dispatcher can save him.” author=”John Scalzi” publisher=”Audible Audio” pubdate=”2016-10-04″ isbn=”B01KKPH1NI” ]
If you think you’re not going to enjoy this, you’re almost certainly right. It’s not made for you. That’s ok: watch how your kids eat it up.
Spoiler-free Movie Review of Ghostbusters (2016):
Since this will likely be a long review, let’s just get the basics down first: Ghostbusters, the 1984 film is a near perfect movie and in no way needed to be remade/rebooted. But it was always going to happen, so let’s just accept that fact and judge the movie that got made. Judgment: it is great fun and you’ll have a good time if you let yourself.
The amount that has been written about this film even before cameras began rolling would lead you to believe this is a cultural touchstone of great, even historic importance. It isn’t. It’s a movie. If you like it, great. If you don’t, great. Let’s not get carried away here, people…
Like many, I find the bile spewed by misogynistic internet trolls deeply disturbing. The fact that “people” would have such a blinding hatred for a movie – any movie – that they’d actually try to tank reviews and ratings in order to alter perception and make a picture fail is so bizarre and unsettling that it says a great deal about the nature of our “culture”. Look at that, two uses of quotes in one sentence – see what we’ve been reduced to…
Rather than enter into a long piece about the outright misogyny that I truly believe lies at the heart of much of the outrage over the 2016 Ghostbusters (they quietly renamed the picture Ghostbusters: Answer the Call recently, but since no one else seems to be calling it that I don’t see why I should), I’m going to take the haters at their word that this isn’t about sexism and focus strictly on their non-gender-based complaints. In effect, I’m ignoring the he-man woman haters and acknowledging that there are genuine good reasons to oppose the reboot of Ghostbusters.
Because you’re not wrong if you think this movie didn’t need to exist – it really doesn’t. In my reviews of Ghostbusters (1984) and Ghostbusters II (1989), I practically pleaded with the rights holders to let the franchise stay dormant. As you will have swiftly realized if you’ve read more than one of my reviews, I am disheartened by the whole remake/reboot modus operandi of Hollywood. So I didn’t really want them to make this picture.
The simple fact is that it was going to be made, however. Too many people, executives and creative talent alike wanted to keep the franchise going. Sure, not all of them, which is why Ghostbusters II was such a mixed bag and why it took 27 years to get some version of Ghostbusters back on screen, but the original picture was such a beloved hit that there really was no chance whatsoever that it wasn’t going to be <drumroll> resurrected. </rimshot>
So there’s no use whining that they shouldn’t have remade the film – they did. Get on board or stay away. Personally, I’m pulling on the proton pack. If it had to happen, I’m glad that this current team was at the helm. Because the idea of reimagining the modern team as female and populating it with some of the funniest women alive was inspired and almost entirely the reason I am behind the picture.
We made sure to go to see the film on opening night; it’s really important to vote with your wallet – if filmmakers can point to a strong opening for a film it helps convince the suits that there’s an audience and a financial reason to make movies that don’t insult half of the human race. Think about that the next time you consider waiting to see a picture at home.
My daughter was incredibly excited about the film. She even gave herself a haircut inspired by Kate McKinnon’s character earlier in the day (looks awesome). We got there early, picked up our complimentary Ghostbusters pins, took a picture by the ginormous cardboard standee and proceeded to have a great time. Everyone in the theater was howling and having a blast, even applauding at the end.
And I came to the important realization that the picture isn’t for me – it’s for the current generation. There’s really no purpose in comparing the new Ghostbusters with the old – this is something new.
<soapbox>
Everyone goes through this at some point, but those of us who lived through the greatest years of cinema (the 1980’s don’cha know) with a historic run of franchises are probably among the guiltiest. We got to experience Star Wars and Star Trek and Indiana Jones and Terminator and Aliens and we think we have some ownership over these things because they were so integral to our coming of age. That’s not necessarily a bad thing – it’s great to be passionate about things you love. But we’re greedy about it. We want our memories to remain sacrosanct and turn positively feral when anyone tries to update “our” properties.
I think it’s telling that whether new Bond films please or disappoint, no one complains that their childhood is being violated. Perhaps it’s partly because the pictures are aimed at an older audience and so they didn’t get hard-wired into our formative years. But I think it has more to do with the fact that the franchise is so long-running that it doesn’t belong to any one generation. Same with Doctor Who. So why can’t we take the same view with our 80’s franchises? You can enjoy one version, one series, and another might miss you. So what?
We all have to be grown-ups about these things and, well, grow up. Our childhood was our childhood; we got to have one. Let someone else take a turn.
</soapbox>
Soooo….how was the movie, pal?
For me it was a solid good. I enjoyed it very much. For my daughter it was nearly perfect – a mammoth hit. For my wife and I, it was a very funny and solid picture. It wasn’t amazing, but it was quite good.
Paul Feig, who rescued the picture from development hell, is a great fit for the story. He gets the tone right, which is the most important thing by far. Written by Feig and Katie Dippold (of Parks and Recreation & The Heat), the story is fine but not overwhelming – it’s a bit slight. So was the original.
The villain, played by Neil Casey is weak and lacking an interesting backstory. So was the original. See where I’m going with this? These films are greater than the sum of their parts. The mood, the feel, the commitment to entertain – this is what you need to aim for. And Ghostbusters does exactly that.
The story follows broadly the same rough structure as the first film, and if not horribly original, you can understand the split directive that comes with any remake/reboot; “make it like the original but not too like the original”.
Interestingly, in some ways this film is a little too wedded to the original picture. There’s a self-awareness and the inclusion of all the cameos and references pads what is already a long run-time. The movie comes in just under the two hour barrier, and there’s new content during the credits, mid-credits and in a post credit stinger. This film is just stuffed – there’s not a lot of room to breathe.
So I can understand why Feig went with the more is more approach. The other big reason he may have been tempted to cram everything in is that there’s so much good in there:
the effects are really good
despite Sony’s usual hallmarks (blatant product placement, antiseptic picture), the Boston for New York production looks pretty good
right balance of scary/funny
the new Ecto-1 is bangin’
the new gear is pretty fun
Most importantly, the comedy is rock solid. These are some great comic actors. Kristen Wiig, Melissa McCarthy and Leslie Jones are all riotous with great chemistry. Chris Hemsworth totally goes for it as dim-witted receptionist Kevin.
But the picture belongs to Kate McKinnon; as Dr. Jillian Holtzmann she damn near steals the whole show. I could watch another two-hour movie of the team just doing routine jobs if it meant getting to watch more Holtzmann shenanigans…
Ghostbusters is a fun movie. It’s not a masterpiece, it’s not an abomination – it’s a very good summer movie and likely to be one of the more fun pictures I see this season. If you don’t have a bone to pick with the very existence of this picture and just want a good time, then you know who to call…
[schema type=”movie” url=”www.ghostbusters.com” name=”Ghostbusters” description=”Erin Gilbert and Abby Bergman are a pair of unheralded authors who write a book positing that ghosts are real. A few years later, Gilbert lands a prestigious teaching position at Columbia University, but her book resurfaces and she is laughed out of academia. Gilbert reunites with Bergman and others when ghosts invade Manhattan and try to save the world.” director=”Paul Feig” producer=”Ivan Reitman” actor_1=”Melissa McCarthy” ]
Following a ghost invasion of Manhattan, paranormal enthusiasts Erin Gilbert and Abby Yates, nuclear engineer Jillian Holtzmann, and subway worker Patty Tolan band together to stop the otherworldly threat.
Written in Fire, the final book in the Brilliance Trilogy, is the all too rare instance of a perfect finale to a journey. It’s the most enjoyable installment in the series. It’s not that author Marcus Sakey was saving the best for last, it’s simply that everything in the first two books has been leading to this conclusion and it plays out very well.
The story of humans developing powers and the inevitable schism this evolution creates was never an original concept, but as the series has progressed, Sakey has shown he has something of value to add to the premise. In the third book, it is the realization of a battle that has been building for some time – normals versus brilliants.
In my review of the second novel, A Better World, I noted only one problem with an otherwise great book – there was no ending. My irritation over that fact and the bad taste it left in my mouth somewhat dampened my enthusiasm for the series and I sort of forgot in the intervening months how much I enjoyed the story and where it was going. A Better World had some truly unique scenes of urban chaos that are continued and expanded upon in Written in Fire.
There is a grounded, realistic quality to the story and the writing that makes the story work in a way that X-Men, for example, often doesn’t. Yes, there is a science fiction, supernatural element to the Brilliance stories, but that fantastical subject really isn’t the story. This is a tale about human beings, whatever their form, and Sakey does an excellent job keeping the story in the realm of possibility, even probability. There’s an inevitability to how events play out that strongly resonates with your expectation of how things would play out in this world.
I believe this series has been optioned for film, and while it certainly seems a natural fit, I wonder whether it would be sufficiently unique to distinguish itself among similar tales, particularly as I consider it a bit of a slow burn.
Recommended.
[schema type=”book” url=”http://marcussakey.com/” name=”Written In Fire” description=”The explosive conclusion to the bestselling Brilliance Trilogy For thirty years humanity struggled to cope with the brilliants, the 1 percent of people born with remarkable gifts. For thirty years we tried to avoid a devastating civil war. We failed. The White House is a smoking ruin. Madison Square Garden is an internment camp. In Wyoming, an armed militia of thousands marches toward a final, apocalyptic battle. Nick Cooper has spent his life fighting for his children and his country. Now, as the world staggers on the edge of ruin, he must risk everything he loves to face his oldest enemy—a brilliant terrorist so driven by his ideals that he will sacrifice humanity’s future to achieve them. From “one of our best storytellers” (Michael Connelly) comes the blistering conclusion to the acclaimed series that is a “forget-to-pick-up-milk, forget-to-water-the-plants, forget-to-eat total immersion experience” (Gillian Flynn).” author=”Marcus Sakey” publisher=”Thomas & Mercer” pubdate=”2016-01-12″ isbn=”1477827641 ” ebook=”yes” paperback=”yes” ]
