Book Review of The Husband's Secret & Television Review of Helix

1. Finished The Husband's Secret by Liane Moriarty yesterday. Liane Moriarty has become a best-selling novelist in the UK and is slowly grabbing an American audience. I would not say she's a great novelist, in various respects her writing style reminds me of most of the other writers that grace the best-seller lists. Like many contemporary writers, Moriarty feels the need to tell the reader everything about her characters or tell the plot, as opposed to trusting the reader to well, figure things out on their own. She's not a subtle writer and doesn't quite have a flair with language that some of the more literary and accomplished novelists do, but she is a step above Jennifer Cruisie, Jane Green, Helen Fielding, and a few other female contemporary writers who unfortunately are associated with annoying chick-lit category of fiction.

The story is about how the little decisions people make affect others in ways that they can't possibly begin to imagine. To ensure the reader gets that - there's an epilogue spelling out how if the characters in the novel made different decisions...their lives and the lives of everyone they knew would turn out differently. Also, we can't blame ourselves for everything - since our decisions and choices aren't isolated but rather they are compounded by the decisions and choices of everyone else. In this respect, The Husband's Secret reminded me a great deal of the film The Cloud Atlas. Also like that film, I felt at times that the writer needed to trust her readers more - although, after reading reviews of the novel on Good Reads and Amazon - a lot of readers appear to be a wee bit dense. And apparently require explanations.

Other than that - it was an entertaining and thoughtful novel, with the writer taking the time to delve into the messy emotions. Told in a stream of consciousness style, and in the limited points of view of three suburban Australian wives and mothers. Did at times feel like a throw-back tale to the 1970s and 80s, even though it took place in more modern times.
(Ghod it makes me feel old saying that.)

I do recommend it, but with the caveat that the writer does explain more than she should, and it is told in stream-of-consciousness, which is not everyone's cup of tea. Also it's female centric, the men are important, but we are never in their point of view.

2. Helix - is the new Syfy channel horror series that is getting touted by various critics. Personally, I don't get the appeal. They've compared it to Fringe, which I suppose makes sense since both are about illegal medical experimentation conducted by crazy governments and corporations with wildly disasterous results- but that's where the comparison ends. Fringe was much better written. And had more compelling characters. This one, not so much. Fringe also had a sense of humor, which most likely came with better writers. Sure it too had its cliche moments and plot contrivances, but none quite as predictable or silly as Helix.

Granted, I'm not a true horror fan. For one thing? I scare easily. Even Helix could scare me. It really doesn't take much. And well, I don't like gore. So that's two strikes against the show before it even began. But the critics made me curious, so I tried it.

Fast-forwarded through the gory, scary bits, and realized okay, not only can I predict what will happen next, but I also can figure out the entire story - without having to rewatch anything I fast-forwarded over. You know something is off - if you can fast-forward and realize you didn't really miss anything important. It was two hours. And it could be in told in 30 minutes. Tight this story isn't. And that's sort of mandatory for horror films. Pacing in a horror series or thriller is 90% of it.

( plot synopsis below, includes major plot spoilers of course )

Keep in mind, I was able to write that review - when I basically fast-forwarded through most of the episode and only watched snippets.

The series reminds me a lot of the Ridely Scott film Prometheus, but not in a good way. It has the same dumb dialogue, poor plotting and focuses far too much on special effects and shock value.

Overall rating? D (Really not worth your time.)

More Reviews: Intelligence and Downton Abbey

Just finished watching Downton Abbey's season premiere. It was okay. Lord Gratham and Lady Cora get on my nerves, and I still think that the writer does a better job of developing the female characters than the male characters. So the story feels oddly unbalanced. OTOH...since most television series appear to be the opposite, this isn't necessarily a bad thing. I do wish the characters were evolved more, Thomas appears to have not changed a whit since he began, and has found yet another Mrs. O'Brien to influence - Cora's new lady's maid. He's also found a way to manipulate Cora (not hard to do, she's so dumb). Also - they are clearly laying the groundwork for a huge and somewhat aggravating arc regarding Anna and Bates. I've read the spoilers, so already know what the story is - and I can see the groundwork being laid. This past week Thomas and the new Lady's maid found a way to undermine Anna with her ladyship and Lord Gratham. That's my main issue with Downton, the characters don't really change. The times do, the circumstances do, but the characters seem to act the same - which makes the series predictable and not all that compelling to me.

Currently trying to watch Intelligence and rapidly losing interest. The only thing it has going for it is the cast - which I like, but the writing...oh dear. It's basically about a guy (Josh Holloway) who has been enchanced with a computer chip. This allows him to assess and know basically everything that is available on the internet. It's sort of like walking around with the internet inside your head. He's a super-spy, working for a covert CIA agency called CyberCom, under project Clockwork. The agency is headed by Marge Helgenberg. While Meghan Ohry has been hired as his body-guard/partner/baby-sitter. They don't get along. She's beautiful, he's hot. They banter. He thinks she isn't capable of protecting him, and is informed that she actually got stabbed five times, protecting the President's daughters, took on five commandos, and got the girl's home in time for dinner (so apparently she's wonderwoman?) Then they find out their first case - which is to rescue John Billingsley, the doctor who developed Josh's chip. And it turns out he developed another one - so of course nasty Chinese agents kidnapped him in order to steal it and insert into their own agent.
Meanwhile we are treated to lines such as : "If there is no snow on the ground when I go to sleep, but it's on the ground when I wake up - it snowed."

Eh, it reminds me a little bit of Marvel Agents of Shield - apparently they have the same dialogue couch? Both have similar writing and dialogue - boilerplate with lots of techno babble, gadgets, special effects and computer speak. Except Intelligence has better actors, and Agents has a slightly more interesting plot and less cliches.

Not worth the time. Overall rating - D-

Go watch Almost Human and Sleepy Hollow instead - better lines, better special effects, and more interesting characters and plot lines.

Film Review: I AM - Documentary by Tom Shadyac

It was raining today, although rather balmy at 57 degrees. So there was that. But still raining. So I stayed in and watched telly. Far too much telly. Did however see a rather good documentary entitled I AM by Tom Shadyac, the director of Ace Ventura, Bruce Almighty, and Patch Adams. The documentary is a philosophical one...with a similar message to The Cloud Atlas, albeit with less violence.
Tom Shadyak had a major bike accident back in 2007, which left him with post-concussive syndrom...depressed, in constant pain, and wanting to die. During this period he discovered that he wanted to say something - before he died. But what was it? So he took a small film crew and went on a journey of discovery - to determine the answer to two questions:

What is wrong with this world and what can I do to change it? Ironically, what he discovered was what was right with the world. And that we had been interpreting it wrong. He had. The pursuit of fame, money, fortune, and acquisition of material goods and accolades had not resulted in happiness. At the time of the filmmaking, Tom had over five properties, a private jet, amongst other material possessions. What works, what is hard-wired in our DNA is an interconnectedness with all people and living things. Science has recently determined that we share DNA across species. That cooperation, love, compassion and empathy have furthered the planet and who we are. That hording wealth, and competition actually set us back a bit. Some competition is necessary, but not to the degree that we've taken it.
Also, the one natural rule that only humans appear to break - is not to take more than you need.

Here's a blurb about the film:

It was a revelation to me that for tens of thousands of years, indigenous cultures taught a very different story about our inherent goodness,” Shadyac marvels. “Now, following this ancient wisdom, science is discovering a plethora of evidence about our hardwiring for connection and compassion, from the Vagus Nerve which releases oxytocin at simply witnessing a compassionate act, to the Mirror Neuron which causes us to literally feel another person’s pain. Darwin himself, who was misunderstood to believe exclusively in our competitiveness, actually noted that humankind’s real power comes in their ability to perform complex tasks together, to sympathize and cooperate.”

Shadyac’s enthusiastic depiction of the brighter side of human nature and reality, itself, is what distinguishes I AM from so many well-intentioned, yet ultimately pessimistic, non-fiction films. And while he does explore what’s wrong with the world, the film’s overwhelming emphasis is focused on what we can do to make it better. Watching I AM is ultimately, for many, a transformative experience, yet Shadyac is reluctant to give specific steps for viewers who have been energized by the film. “What can I do?” “I get asked that a lot,” he says. “But the solution begins with a deeper transformation that must occur in each of us. I AM isn’t as much about what you can do, as who you can be. And from that transformation of being, action will naturally follow.”

Far more entertaining than expected, and moving. Featuring interviews with the following
luminaries as David Suzuki, Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Lynne McTaggart, Ray Anderson, John Francis, Coleman Barks, and Marc Ian Barasch. Also detailed bits on scientific experiments determining that the heart feeds information to the brain, not necessarily the other way around.

My only critic is the film feels a bit manipulative in places and choppy in others, also I think he oversells his point. But, other than that it is a lovely film and rather uplifting, not to mention inspiring. One of the points of the film - is everything little thing we do is important. There is not such thing as a tiny action. And it takes a lot of steps to do something. Don't take it all on at once.

Two fannish bits before bed

1. Hee. HBO is now doing teaser trailers for preview trailers of Game of Thrones:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ih3WsEKmID0

"We Can't Cancel Everyone" (Watch on YouTube)

I find that hilarious.

2. Buzzmedia decided to rank 117 Characters from Buffy and Angel from worst to best arcs, in reverse order.

What I found interesting about the list was the following:

* I had no idea who half the characters listed were and clearly had forgotten them. (A definite sign that I'm no longer fannish or obsessed about this series.) I also got bored halfway through the list and lost track.

* The person making the list clearly has a preference for geeky characters with an edge. I knew halfway through that she was a Fred and Willow fan. Also a huge fan of Andrew (because Tom Lenk is her bud). Personally, I'd have ranked Andrew lower than Robin Wood, Angel, Wesley, Warren, and Anya, but that's just me. I'd also have ranked Fred, the Burkles, and Tara lower than Angel. Not to mention much lower than Buffy.

Actually my top twenty-five Buffy/Angel character arcs would have been:

1)Buffy, 2) Spike, 3) Wesley, 4) Willow (that magic as crack bit almost did it in, as did the lame plotting of S7 - so she's nudged below Wes), 5) Angel/Angelus (I'm ignoring the comics) 6) Darla, 7) Anya, 8) Illyria/Fred (I think you should combine them), 9) Faith, 10)Xander (he got nudged down due to having zip to do after he saved Willow in Grave, also his arc was incredibly cliche), 11) Cordelia (the second half of the 3rd season and the entire 4th season sort of killed her arc for me but up until then..), 12) Giles (not explored fully enough due to leaving in the 6th Season and just standing around being a doofus in S7), 13) Connor/Dawn (a tie, although I admittedly preferred Connor to Dawn, in part due to the actors, and in part due to the character. But arc wise? About the same.) 14) Gunn/Anne (tie), 15) Drusilla, 16) OZ/Riley (tie, both have an arc that is somewhat cut short due to storyline issues - ie the writers wrote the characters into a corner or the actor wanted to go on and do other things), 18) Jonathan 19) Tara/ Doyle (tie - see Riley/OZ above, there were either actor issues or plot dictates which stunted the arcs), 20) Jenny Calendar/Joyce Summers (a tie), 21) Amy (she basically becomes her mom) 22) Ethan Rayne (nudged down because he doesn't really have all that much of an arc, does he?), 23) Lilah/Lindsey (tie), 24) The Mayor/Jasmine (tie), 25) Professor Walsh/Holtz/Justine (tie)

* That is one long list....I couldn't do that for any tv series or book. I forget.

Okay, I'm brain dead now. Going to bed.