This novel gets 2 stars instead of 1 out of me only because I thought the beginning pages displayed a certain satisfying suspense, a feeling of impending dread, and I liked the way King captured the atmosphere of suburban American. It doesn't take long for the book to deteriorate though, and it gets bad. I mean, really, REALLY bad. I just came back to reading King after being away from him for a long time, and if "The Regulators" is any indication of the stuff he's churning out now, I think I'll go back to staying away.

You might be interested in checking out the sister book to this, "Desperation." It's better by far, but it's still a much flabbier, more undisciplined book than I remember King producing in the past.

It rarely happens, but in transferring "House of Sand and Fog" from the page to the screen, the film makers have improved the material. If you want to know what I thought about the book, I've written a review here at Amazon. In a nutshell, I thought the book was absolutely dreadful and nearly unredeemable. It made me feel bad---not bad for the people or for what happens, but just bad to be exposed to such unlikable characters and an improbable plot---in short, I was depressed by bad art.

The movie, in contrast, made me feel not bad but rather sad---sad for the characters themselves, because the screenwriter and actors do a much better job at creating sympathetic characters than does the book's author. The colonel is a bit less of a monster at the end of the movie---Kathy seems to come more fully to her senses. Lester's actions don't make any more sense in the movie than in the book, but it's easier in the film to accept that they're impulsive, rash actions being carried out by a desperate man; the book, on the other hand, wants to justify Lester's actions with heaps of back story, none of which helps in the least.

The actors do a fine job. Ben Kingsley's performance is a bit overrated, but even at that it's great. Ditto Shoreh Aghdashloo--I only wish she had had a bigger role. Jennifer Connelly just does the mopey suffering thing she's done in just about every other movie she's appeared in. It's time for this woman to make a comedy. The biggest treat in the film is the sterling cinematography.

If you hated the book, see the movie. If you like the movie, DO NOT read the book. The book deserves to be burned; the movie deserves to be seen.

Grade: A-

When I was in high school, I went through a major Stephen King phase. He was the only author I would read, and I didn't stop until I'd read every thing he wrote (up to "The Green Mile"). That was a few years ago, and recently I was in the mood to come back to him and do some catch up with the things he's written since. I read "Desperation" and I'm currently in the middle of its sister book "The Regulators," and while I enjoyed "Desperation," I do have to admit that I've outgrown King somewhat. I don't know if he's gotten worse as a writer, or whether he's always written like this and I'm just remembering him from a different perspective, but his writing is just so SLOPPY. I feel like there's no tightness to it at all; it's like a really fatty piece of meat---there are good parts, but you have to cut around all of the inedible portions to get to them.

He builds some nice effective creepy dread in the novel's first half, but by the time it's over, it's not really scary anymore. I admit that I was pretty hooked for the whole thing and did my share of page turning, but the whole time I was reading I was aware that I was reading schlock well below my reading level, and King's writing never affected me like that before. I know that sounds pompous, and I really don't mean it to, but it's just the honest truth. He really belongs in the same class as John Grisham, except he's got more imagination in his thumbnail than Grisham has in his entire body. After I finish "The Regulators" I think my Stephen King craving will be satisfied for some time to come.

Jack Black is like Jim Carrey--he works so hard at his comedy that the strain at first overshadows the humour. But like Jim Carrey, he keeps so insistently at his viewers that they can't help but be won over totally by his zaniness. I didn't think Black was very funny when this movie started, but he plays the role so earnestly and with so much personality that I was a Jack Black fan by the time it was over.

There seems to be a generation of film makers now (Richard Linklater, Cameron Crowe) that are redefining the qualities that can make someone "cool," and their movies are full of welcome messages. Cool isn't about how you look or dress or act. Cool's a state of mind, man. Peace out.

Grade: A-

The 1935 Academy Award for Best Picture. The AFI list of best 100 films of the century (the 20th, that is). With this pedigree, I expected great things from "Mutiny on the Bounty." But this film for me, while never less than entertaining, fell far short of greatness. It's a solid action film with a script more literate than your average action movie to be sure, but I was still left somewhat cold by it.

Much of the adoration of this film seems to spring from a love of the central performances, namely those of Charles Laughton and Clark Gable. Both of course are good, but Laughton's character suffers from a silent movie villain's one-noteness. He does sadistic well, but that's about all he's required to do. Clark Gable impressed me more, and made me think that maybe he's a better actor than I ever gave him credit for. But for me, the standout performer (and the one I hear the least about) is Franchot Tone, playing a young idealist, enamored with the romance of life at sea and not prepared for the petty brutalities and politics. Tone is forced to give the most nuanced performance, as he straddles the line between loyalty to upper command and humanity for his fellow shipmates. In contrast to Laughton and Gable's showy roles, Tone's is quiet and thoughtful, except for a last-minute soliloquy that he handles well.

The production is never less than impressive, especially for 1935. The special effects are solid, as is the attention paid to period detail. But for some reason, despite the good things I have to say about the film, I just never got that into it. It's like any number of solidly crafted films released today: competent, fairly intelligent and well done, but not especially artistic or unique. One gets the feeling that it achieves what it sets out to do; one just wished it had set out to do a little more than it does.

Grade: B

Diane Lane is a fascinating actress to watch. Her face is always doing something interesting, and she has a winning, winsome quality to her that makes you automatically root for her. She takes the role she's given here and actually does things with it that other actresses probably couldn't.

Otherwise, this film is the visual equivalent of Diet Soda: canned, bland and full of sugar. It should appeal to the Oprah crowd.

Grade: C

I so wanted to give this film a better review, because if nothing else, "Hulk" at least takes a more interesting than average approach to the comic-book-turned-into-summer-blockbuster genre. Ang Lee gets kudos from me for his use of split screens to suggest the panels of a comic book, but that's about where my praise ends. Because I usually like Lee, I'm giving this two stars instead of one, but I'm doing that under duress.

"Hulk" is dreadful. It's 140 minutes of nonsense, which might be o.k. if that nonsense had any notion that it was nonsense. But Lee and company seem to take their material utterly seriously, which is deadly for this kind of film. Lee uses the comic book look for his film, but he doesn't use the comic book tongue-in-cheek style of story-telling, so every single scene comes across as unintentionally silly. Even with that, the film might have been enjoyable. Hey, I enjoy a fun bad movie as much as the next guy. But this is a fun bad movie without the fun.

The story takes forever to get going, and once it does it doesn't make a lot of sense anyway. I can't believe I'm saying this, but this is one case where the story overwhelms the visuals. I don't really need that much back story to the Hulk---what I want are cool action sequences and zingy special effects. Well, the effects in this suck. I almost have to believe the CG animation in this film was intentionally corny, otherwise the producers got seriously ripped off. The only thing I can say about the animated Hulk is that he's a better actor than Eric Bana, who plays Bruce Banner. Please don't ask this boy to act, and especially don't ask him to cry. Jennifer Connelly is starting to really get on my nerves. She's stealing the market on noble suffering away from Joan Allen. But the real booby prize goes to Nick Nolte, who has driven another nail into the coffin of his career with his appearance in this. He's absolutely putrid, chewing the scenery every chance he gets in a greasy fright wig. His big showy soliloquy toward the end might have been more effective if the viewer could understand a word he says, but I doubt it. Perhaps the filmmakers should have chosen to use a CG version of Nick Nolte instead of the real thing.

And darned if this movie doesn't suffer from action movie syndrome, complete with false finale and a real finale that is jaw-droppingly wretched. $100 bucks to anyone who can make sense of what happens at the end, and who can also tell me how all of the people back at the military base were able to see the big battle between the Hulk and Nick Nolte as if they were watching it on screen as we are, even though they are miles away watching nothing more than a radar screen.

Bad, bad, bad.....

Grade: D-

If watching a bunch of high-strung theatre star wannabes prancing around and hissing at one another is what you're in the mood for, "Camp" is made to order. I happened to be in the mood for it, but even so found that it tested my patience. For one thing, it's way too long for its subject matter. For another thing, it's all over the place as far as plot goes, with no dramatic center to anchor the story. O.k., I wasn't expecting "Citizen Kane," (hell, I wasn't even expecting "Legally Blonde"), but I do like my movies to be written with a modicum of competency. "Camp" flounders from one scene to the next, sort of focusing on three principal characters but not really even doing that, climaxing in a flashy dance number that looks like the final scene from "All That Jazz" mixed with an episode of "Star Search."

What this movie is good for, however, are the musical numbers. Seeing teenagers belt out songs from "Follies" and "Company" is admittedly fun. And there are some life-affirming lessons about being true to yourself, etc., but these are even more diluted than your average after-school special.

There are worse ways to spend a couple of hours, but you might want to consider re-watching "Fame" instead.

Grade: C

"American Splendor" is a terrific film, and easily one of the best of 2003 (though that's not saying much). It tells the story of Harvey Pekar, famous in comic book circles for starting the American Splendor series. I didn't know anything about him or the series before I saw this movie, so it might be even more enjoyable for those who do. Or, as so often happens with biopics, an educated viewer might find that the story plays too loosely with facts. I can't answer for that, but I can say that I enjoyed this film very much.

Paul Giamatti seems to be born to play Pekar. He's got the perfect hang-dog, born-loser aura about him. Hope Davis is also very good as Pekar's equally strange wife. This film got a lot of attention for its unconventional approach to story telling, using animation and documentary-like clips of the real Harvey Pekar to highlight the fictional portion of the film. For that reason, I was actually expecting this film to be more indie than it feels. As is, it's good, but it's fairly conventional. That's the only thing about it that disappointed me slightly.

But still, even if slightly more conventional than I would have wished, it's more intelligent than 95% of the other conventional films floating around out there.

Grade: A

The Coen brothers are a very hit-or-miss filmmaking team. Either I love their movies ("Fargo," "Blood Simple," "The Man Who Wasn't There") or I hate them ("The Big Lebowski, "O Brother, Where Art Thou?"). O.k., so I didn't necessarily love "Intolerable Cruelty," but it does qualify as a hit for me. It's a refreshingly unpredictable comedy, sort of a dark homage to the screwball comedies of the 30's and 40's. I could see Cary Grant and Irene Dunne doing this film, or William Powell and Myrna Loy.

I think George Clooney is a pretty bland actor, but I can admit that he's got charm, which is all this role really calls for. Catherine Zeta-Jones will probably reveal herself to be a fairly limited actress by the time all is said and done, but she's sexy as hell, which is all HER role really calls for. So, these two work together just fine.

The only quibbles I have with the movie are the one or two instances where it falls back on that slapstick humour that the Coen brothers tend to overdo, but these are minor quibbles. Overall, this one is a winner.

Grade: A-