Eddie's Appendices

Recent events have forced me to release this article, which was started (and abandoned) in November and was appropriately named “Kino(vember) Night in Kanada” That original article was born from my then recent acquisition of a 4k Blu-Ray player, and the start of a modest film collection. I had therefore watched a bunch of movies in November, and thought to make an article about that. Life caught up and I didn't have time to finish it. Now is the time though, with the remains of this article, and the subsequent review of Wake Up Dead Man, which we will talk about at the end of this article. So, we start with the original article, where I review movies I saw after I bought a physical copy of them.

Godzilla Minus One

I have seen this movie thrice now, and the more I watch it, the less I like it. I know it's a heresy in the Godzilla community to not like this movie, but it is what it is. The first time I saw it in the theatres, I already had given it a fairly positive albeit luke-warm review. With the novelty wearing out, it's just less appealing of a movie to me.

The acting's over the topness, is a bit more jarring with each rewatch, and some of the scenes are so dramatic and over the top that it stretches the limits of believability. The choppy pace is more visible and disruptive. The way godzilla moves is also super robotic which doesn't really makes sense with his design. Overall, I don't find this Godzilla (the monster) that internally consistent; why does it just go back to the sea after having destroy Ginza and come back? Why not just continue until all of Tokyo is rased?

Another fault in the movie, which is the movie actually is blameless about, is that it was released after Shin Godzilla. We had already seen a godzilla vs japan with Shin. The only differentiating part is the post-WWII setting, and I don't think they did anything super-duper interesting with that godzilla-wise. We need the new Toho Godzillas to fight other monsters, it's like half of the appeal of the Godzilla franchise. Godzilla Minus Zero (yes it's the official title of the sequel) better have another monster. We have not seen any takes from Toho on the classic Godzilla enemies since the release of Godzilla Final Wars in 2004!

On the character front, I wouldn't have minded a bit more character development, and more development in the characters' relationships.

Despite all of my complaining, it's still undeniably a good movie. The above is just the flaws that get exacerbated on multiple rewatches. All the good things I said about the movie in my previous review stand.

Previous, slightly edited, review right after seeing it in the theatres in 2023:

Not quite sure if I would call it kino, but it's a good movie. However clumsy, Shin Godzilla still has more merit to the Toho kino crown.  This last movie however does not have to blush on the theme fronts, and addresses some pretty interesting ones, due to it being set right after WWII. Those themes are also pretty original — at least from a westoïd perspective. Acting is a bit over the tops as expected, but it's not so jarring that it takes you out of the plot. Speaking of plot, the human section is not only decent, but actually interesting, I was actually made to care about the different characters. I even managed to be fooled: the ultimate plot twist is setup in a really obvious manner and I saw it coming a mile away. Or did I? Well yes, but actually no. [SPOILER] The outcome is the same, but the process was different and much better for two character arcs. [SPOILER] On the monster side, we stick to the classics; simple but effective. Godzilla's design works, and his breath attack is fucking dope, it's honesty 90% as hype as that bomb in the star wars prequelle (yk what I'm talking about). Now on to the negative; CGI can be a bit hit or miss, I thought japan had caught up as I was pleasantly surprised with Shin Godzilla's offering. There was really only one scene where I was like “wow that's rough”. And although they are not awful, the water effects/interactions with Godzilla is nowhere near what we saw in the recent Godzilla vs King Kong, which water effect really impressed me at the time. [SPOILER] Finally, other than the ending, there is only one Godzilla mass destruction scene, which at the very least one too little. [SPOILER] Cinematography was good, but nothing spectacular jumped at me. The music is pretty good here, but it mostly sticks with the classic safe vibe for Godzilla tracks. No iconic “Who will know” or “Persecution of the Masses” here. Overall this movie does everything well, and even some things great. As far as Godzilla movies go, it's at the top of the basket for me.

Amadeus

I have seen this movie easily 20-30times, and two thirds of those were during one summer. When I was a kid, during the summer vacations, my family used to drive to the italian alps, and we would usually spend almost a month on top of one of the mountain there. Our time was mostly filled with hikes, at a rhythm of one every 2-3 days. There was no internet, and with this being in the german speaking part of the italian part of the alps (you've read this correctly), cable was all but understandable to us. Therefore, we would usually bring a DVD player and only a couple of DVDs, that we would watch on repeat for the month, to the delight of my parents, I'm sure. One summer, we brought Amadeus and Big Fish. We've watched both almost every day. I haven't really watched or thought about it since, easily 12-13 years ago, but when Nick mentioned it a couple month ago, my memories of it suddenly resurfaced.

This movie is absolutely goated. What a fine choice for us to have a hyperfixation on that summer. The music is just bangers after bangers after banger, the sets look awesome, the costumes look awesome. The performances are amazing and the story great. I loved Salieri, what a portrayal of the pure essence of a hater. I also loved how somehow he would get super lucky with stuff happening in the movie, and would immediately incorporate that lucky stuff in his despicable schemes.

If I had to find one fault with the movie and the 4k remaster, it's that the audio dynamics is too wide; if you turn up the volume to hear the dialogues, the music will be blasting, and if you turn down the volume because of the music, you will not hear any of the dialogues.

Bladerunner

I had watched Bladerunner once before, the director's cut, and I thought it was good. Upon rewatch while I appreciate how maybe ground-breaking it was at the time, I found it a bit timid. While the cinematography is great, in terms of story, it's actually pretty generic. It is also very dated. The very young 20 year old ending up with the 40 year old dude for ? reason. Don't forget the sexual assault and coercion scene. The dialogue also feels pretty dated, honestly everything that relates to characters interacting with each other or being on screen. It feels pretty jarring for a movie set in the distant future of *checks notes* the year 2019 to feel that old in this regard.

Loved the eye replicant effect, and the ending monologue. The themes are still relevant and fairly well explored. I do not understand the debate around Deckard being a replicant or not, and people acting as if Deckard not being a human ruins the movie. I went into the movie thinking Deckard was a replicant and I found nothing in my viewing that contradicted that. Also I find that Deckard being a replicant is better in terms of narrative than him being a human, as otherwise it such a generic message of “actually the robots are more human than the humans themselves!!1!!!!1!”.

Please crucify me now.

Bladerunner 2049

I'd tried to watch Bladerunner 2049 already and didn't even make it halfway through (to be fair it was in the plane a couple of years ago). I don't know what happened then, because this movie is awesome. I did get baited by the “of course the main character is the chosen one that everybody wants to get their hands on” and liked the switcheroo.

Colours and visuals, everything was great — Denis was really just getting his tools ready for Dune. There are so many interesting an beautiful shots. The themes are very interesting and I did love Ryan Gosling as the main protagonist. His relationship with his AI chatbot girl is very reminiscent of the movie “Her” (I've never seen it). I found his investigation more engaging and easier to follow that Deckard's. The only main negative point of the movie is that they dragged Harrison Ford from wherever he was to play in this movie, and he doesn't want to. Hell, even in the first one he looked like he didn't want to be there. Leave grandpa alone.

Shin Godzilla x2

“surprisingly engaging” – Elisa “oh, the SDF is still called the SDF?” – Bennet “damn, if I ever get a girlfriend that looks like her [talking about japanese lead actress], you know I'm compromised” – Spencer

I saw Shin Godzilla twice in November, first when I received the 4k blu-ray, and then 4 days later because Spencer wanted to see it, and so we watched it all together with Tetyana, Elisa, Bennet and Spencer.

I still loved it as much, it looks awesome although the VFX does look a bit rough until Godzilla gets to its fourth form. There's also a minor pacing issue with the movie, with the tension building all the way up and then releasing, but we still have a quarter of the movie left. Here's a professional rendition of the tension:

Bennet did point out something that is very apparent, but I had just glanced over during my viewing, which is the amount of SDF (the japanese army) dickriding. The movie showcase all the cool toys that the army has, they make plans to stop Godzilla and are discipline, risk their lives... It is very obvious, but I think I missed it because I'm used to ignoring the amount of military propaganda in us movies, which is omnipresent.

The deleted scenes + outtakes were really cool to have, another win for the owners of physical media. I already talked about this movie in Kino Nights in/above Canada so I won't really say more.

Dune

Peak. Denis Villeneuve my goat. Looks awesome, sounds awesome.

This is the end of the previous article, and I didn't really watch any more movies (other than the Grinch which I had already seen a handful of times), but here they are:

Frankenstein

Designs and shit interesting, cinematography not super interesting, especially the lighting which I found bland. I don't think the story was an improvement on Mary Shelley's work which I had read recently. Dialogues were ok. The wolf scene was awesome on its own but is super inconsistent with the tone and vibe of the movie. Kinda disappointed overall

On to the main course:

Wake Up Dead Man

I had already said I liked glass onion better than knives out in a previous movie article Kino Nights in/above Canada. After seeing this, I just posted my ranking of the knives out movies, from my favourite to my least favourite. I didn't expect it to stir that many reactions. Here's a chronological retelling of the events that happened between the evening of Feb 2nd and the morning of Feb 3rd:

21:20:45 – I finish Wake Up Dead Man with Tetyana, I turn to her and tell her “it's my least favourite out of the three movies, like it's not bad, but I liked the others more”

21:26:18 – I make this post on the cafe, with my ranking of the Knives Out movies, from my favourite to least favourite:

21:41:46 – Kaitlyn reacts to the post and posts her own ranking:

22:04:29 – Alex replies to the original post with the correct ranking, so far none of the rankings are the same:

22:06:03 – Elisa reacts to the post and asks if we can't all agree that the movies are all good (I think we all agree about that, but we each have our favourite):

22:07:38 – Bennet Blanc sets up a trap, replying to Kaitlyn's comment:

22:20:38 – Kaitlyn adds some cheese to the trap by replying to Bennet Blanc's post:

23:39:19 – Nick reacts to the post and accuses my original post of being stinky “french cheese” bait (the fool, does he not know that a cheese's taste is inversely proportional to its stench?)

8:13:35 – Spencer reacts to the post

8:32:52 – Noah reacts and replies to the post with the sanest reply of all:

15:06:06 – Jaeg reacts and replies to the post also accusing it to be bait:

[in an american southern accent, with infinite drip] We now have all the pieces of the puzzle... but I do not know yet who they fit together... Actually, I don't think there's even a puzzle at all here, there's no mystery... or maybe, the mystery was the friends we lost along the way...

Are my preferences so abhorrent that the expression of my taste has to be “bait”? Also what does that mean, how can it be bait? What would I be baiting? For people to give me their ranking of favourite to least favourite Knives Out movies? oh no fostering conversation on the cafe. I'm crashing out rn, I'm a tax-paying card-carrying citizen of crashout city and I wear it on my sleeves. Was accusing me of bait a bait in itself? If so, I have pushed away the little stick holding the trap open, let the box fall and I'm comfy in my little wooden enclosure, delecting myself with 'stinky french' cheese.

Alrighty, dramatic crash out out of the way, I'll briefly explain why I like this movie less than the other entries in the franchise.

I thought the mystery was way less fun than the previous two movies and more random. The story was better in the beginning than both movies, but the way it's told less interesting than in the second movie. In terms of setting, I also found it less appealing than the second movie, but better than the first (the third and first are extremely similar to me). I thought the secondary characters were super underdeveloped here, where they had been pretty well fleshed out in the second movie after being inexistent in the first. The main “main characters” were really excellent here (the priest and monsignor) but I lament the fact that I cannot count Benoît Blanc amongst them. Benoît Blanc being less present and having little agency was something they had addressed in the second movie but they seem to have sinned again here. The main antagonist kinda sucks and her motivations also suck. The secondary antagonists also suck. The cinematography is good, more mature than first one and better than the second one. The costumes and outfits were way less fun here.

My vision of the Knives out movies is as good movies that are really fun, like Bullet Train which I found awesome (although the Knives Outs are definitely more restrained). I think this one took itself a bit too seriously, and could not have topped how fun the second one is. And this is why my favourite Knives Out Movie is the second one despite its ending, my second favourite the first one due to its charm, and my least favourite one this third one.

I hope you have had as much fun reading this crash out as I have had writing it. Please do remember that it's not that deep.

Thank you for reading my logorrhea Eddie – Award winning author

I watched “The Substance” yesterday with Tetyana as our Halloween night spooky movie.

The premise was really interesting; a company offers a service where you can inject yourself with a serum to create a “better” version of yourself. You are the matrix, they are the other. It's not a clone, it's basically just sprouting another human being out of you. You do not share the other's memory (and them yours), and yet only one of you can be conscious at a time. There are rules:

• You/Your other must feed your other/its matrix with IV while unconscious
• Your other must stabilize every day, which involves the other extracting some cerebrospinal fluid out of you (the matrix) and injecting it to themselves
• You must switch every 7 days, no exceptions
• Remember you are one

Our protagonist, Elisabeth, goes through with this procedure. Sue is born. The movie explores the dynamic between Sue and Elisabeth. The cinematography is where this movie really shines in my opinion, it is original and striking without every feeling too needlessly artsy. There were a ton of interesting shots, or ways the camera was used, positioned, or how the movement/lack of it was used. While being overall consistent for the movie, the cinematography was very noticeably different when following Elisabeth or Sue. While Elisabeth's was very sober, plain almost minimalist for the most part, Sue's was hectic, glamourous with very, very close-up shots.

The sound design was also very claustrophobic in a way, with a lot of low pass filter creating an effect of being underwater, while having some bodily sounds being unfiltered. This ties in to the body horror part of the movie. There are a bunch of disgusting sounds in there.

Another part of the body horror was nudity. There was so much ass. My notes for this portion of the review are simply “ass ass ass ass ass ass ass ass [...]“. This is when Sue is on-screen, and she is extremely sexualised, not only by the movie, but by the entertainment industry, which plays an important part in the story. The other side of body horror comes in during the stabilizing requirements, and during other scenes that I cannot spoil. Most of it is during the last 20min of the film, which are so wild I would never in a million years predicted it.

The script is the weakest part of this movie in my opinion, with glaring plot holes and overall not being airtight, never giving you the “wow that is so clever” feeling from seeing something unfolding. It is not bad, but apart from the premise, it is serviceable. However, the movie does not take itself seriously (without the satire being too in your face most of the time), so the weakness of the scenario is not a fatal flaw. The music is not the main focus of the movie, and does its job here. Apart from one or two tracks, it doesn't do anything special. The acting is to be commended, both actresses (Elisabeth – Demi Moore & Sue – Margaret Qualley) are doing a great job and selling a believable performance. The director, who also wrote, co-edited, and co-produced the film, Coralie Fargeat, is also to be saluted, as I especially liked the direction. And I also have to mention Benjamin Kracun who was responsible for the much appreciated cinematography.

The themes of the use of women by the entertainment industry (sole focus on beauty, youth, and unrealistic standards as well as rampant sexualization for monetisation purpose) and parenting, are very unsubtly present here. The second one was dealt with more depth and almost nuance, while the first was pretty simplistic. I don't believe the movie could have gotten away without mentioning the first though, so it is understandable. What the movie says about the former and self-hate, self-loathing, things taken for granted/lack of appreciation for the things we have, aging... were really interesting in my opinion, even if I can't fully relate to the last one yet. Overall, this movie touches on multiple subject, without being too verbose. A lot of them are mostly indirectly approached, which is nice to see; the movie is not afraid of the viewer not understanding/getting everything.

I would recommend this movie, it is a nice breath of fresh air in the horror genre, which — last I checked — was pretty stale. But don't expect too much horror. 16/20

This article is a bit more freeform and shorter as I just want to get it out while it's fresh.

Let me preface this article by saying that I don't hate Dune 2, it's just clickbait. The movie was a ton a fun, and I was enjoying myself for the whole time, which is quite the prowess from the filmmakers, as the movie is extremely long. The music is as good as in the first one, the cinematography is as good too, and it pick up the pace significantly. Nevertheless, my boy Denis (we are on a first name basis) had to alter the story to make it more palatable as a movie — something colloquially called “adapting”. While I have no beef with the Dune movies as movies, I have some issues with Dune Part 2 as an adaptation of the book. Also, it goes without saying, but this appendix will be very tinted by what I got from the book and what it represents to me, i.e. how I interpreted it, but also how I interpreted the movies.

Issue from the first movie that come back to bite the second in the ass

In the first movie, the plot to have the Duke doubt Jessica is completely scrapped. If you recall, in the book, Hawat had intercepted a partial message that made it clear that there was a traitor in House Atreides, close to the Duke. While it was revealed later that it was Yueh, until he sees Paul at the end of the first book, Hawat is persuaded that Jessica is to blame. This leads Hawat to work for the Baron, after some careful last minute manipulations by him, as he had just lost his mentat. This comes back later, with a feud between Feyd and the Baron, which both use Hawat, whose playing all sides (and thus always comes out on top). Without Hawat, the Harkonnens appear a bit stupid and definitely less conniving and calculated in the movies. They suffer the politics of the Emperor, rather than shape it (to an extent). They are also more of a one dimensional big bad antagonist. They are indirectly made more honorable and playing by the rules, and less cowardly, which imo is the antithesis of the Harkonnens.

Also the Baron isn't 900lb, wtf?!!!11!

Issues originating here

Jamis fight

Jamis fight in the books is where Paul kinda “wakes up” to his role in the prophecy, and the affect he can have on the Fremen. It's also where is prescience is made more apparent to him. The whole fight, and the aftermath with the ceremony for Jamis, is setup as something really important and deepens the lore of the Fremen, with how alien their rites and traditions are. It's also where Chani and Paul get closer together. Finally, right after the fight is when his mother becomes afraid of what Paul might become and reinforces the severity of killing a man. This is pretty much completely scrapped in the movie.

Relationship dynamic between Paul and Jessica

Speaking of Jessica and her relationship to Paul, in the books their relationship is much less antagonistic than in the movie. Movie Jessica is basically dead set on using the Fremen and Paul to get what she wants, and it is made obvious that she's le bad and her motivations are unpure. She completely dominates Paul and in the end achieve her goal, through scheming and manipulation of the native population. She has absolutely no chills and is adamant on pushing Paul to become the Kwisatz Haderach, and having him rule the Fremen. Paul basically submits to her and for most of the movie until the final climax, is content to just do his thing blowing up spice harvesters. Her character, and relationship dynamic with Paul was a lot more nuanced and interesting in the book. There was more push and pull and either side about who was leading the other to act. She was also less of a driving force to the narrative, while somehow having more depth.

Paul's loss of agency

Our most specialest quirked up white boy is taking the back seat in the movie for most of its runtime. He just takes part in Stilgar's raids, and does a good job, which lead the Fremen to accept him. While his mom is doing the heavy lifting and doubling down on the Missiona Protectiva. In the book, he is more proactive about everything, especially changing the prophecy to prevent the Jihad/trying to make the Jihad less destructive. There is a constant internal fight in Paul to try to deviate from the path which leads to the Jihad, which manifest externally too (for instance when he decides to be called Paul-Muad'Dib instead of just Muad'Dib). This is completely absent here, and he barely uses his prescience, which was a big driving force behind his actions in the book. This version of Paul is very passive and more reactionary rather than calculated. Some of his action in the movies don't have the same weight either, since the context of the Jihad almost missing. Also at while he was fighting all along to prevent the Jihad, he realises at the end of the book that everything he has done will lead to the Jihad and accepts his fate. This right here is my shit, I love a story where the protagonist are actively working against the predetermined outcome, only to realise too late that they brought this outcome by working against it.

North vs South

The dichotomy north vs south, with the latter being very down with the prophecy is not something that appeared in the book, and imo although sorta expending the lore, oversimplifies the diversity of the people of the sietch. While other tribes were mentioned in the book, we mostly on hear about Sietch Tabr and some unamed southern sietches where the children are kept in. In the book Sietch Tabr although not completely expended upon, had people who adulate Paul, are neutral, or negative towards him. In the movie, it really flattens the Fremen. Our boy Stilgar whose enamoured by the prophecy while being the leader of a Northern Sietch, is actually from the south, so he doesn't even escape from the rule.

Stilgar

LISAN AL-GAIB! Speaking of Stilgar, my boy is so fun in the movie, but I appreciated the relationship he had with Paul better in the book. Friend to then follower, and it was made clear to the reader that Stilgar going from friend to follower was a big step/ point of no return in the Muad-Dib prophecy. In the movie he is the most devout follower, the adoring fan, right from the beginning. He doesn't even admit he's the Lisan Al-Gaib, as it was written! Just more proof that he is!

Chani

While I like how Chani is less of an adoring fan (basically what Stilgar was changed into) in the movie and has more depth, the subplot with Jessica and Irulan is very weird and I am extremely curious to see how it unfolds, because there is no way it becomes good. The events of the second book don't really allow enough room for this subplot, especially with what happens in the very beginning, and what is literally one of the main plot of the book.

There are more changes, that I'm not particularly a big fan of, some that I don't care about, and others that I approve of. Dune is a very vast and meaningful work, and it is just impossible to impart every single meaning or interpretation into two 3h movies. Denis adaptation just didn't seem to catch my specific interpretation of the book, and that's alright. It's not as if he was betraying the source material, so I'm happy with the movies he has produced, especially since they kinda rock as movies.

The first part of this article is written by hand. I have included a typed version as an appendix for those that cannot read my writing.

I recently found an old fountain pen I used to have and thought it would be fun to write my next article draft with it. I've always had trouble focusing on things that had a crappy tactile feeling (like writing with a generic ballpoint pen). I can get in the zone easier with a very tactile keyboard or a scratchy mechanical pen. Therefore, I thought it could be beneficial to go back to using a fountain pen again. Go back? It may bewilder you to learn that in school, I was forced to only use a fountain pen, from the French equivalent of grade 4 to grade 10. It was a semi-widespread practice in France in my days. I was kinda surprised to learn that in North America, most people my age have never used a fountain pen or know how to operate one. That those are seen as antiquities or obsolete devices; if you use one, you must be into calligraphy or a rich eccentric person. It is thus my duty to inform the good people of the café on fountain pens, and quickly present a little hobby of mine.

What is a fountain pen?

[drawing with legend]

The handle and barrel —however important— are the least interesting; they only matter for aesthetics and comfort. Then comes the cartridge/cartridge converter; it holds the ink. A cartridge is just a plastic shell holding it, non-refillable and meant to be disposable. Cartridge converters are meant to be refilled using ink bottles. To do so, simply dunk the nib into your ink of choice and activate whatever mechanism is proprietary to your converter. On top of being more eco-friendly, cartridge converters allow you to use as many different inks as your heart desires. Here is a collection of a few of mine :

[Different inks]

The nib

You might have noticed above that other than the colour, the thickness of the lettering also varies; this is where the nib comes in. The nib is arguably the most important part of the pen; it determines the thickness of the line, the style (you can even get italics nibs!), the feedback from the page, flex, ink flow and probably other things I don't know of. There are also different nib materials (steel, gold alloys, titanium, palladium) which might affect all the above. Those things are purely subjective; there are no characteristics that are considered better than others. I like a smooth pen with a fine, medium-fine thickness, just a bit of flex and moderate ink flow. Here are a couple of thicknesses demonstrated below:

[thickness showcase]

As you can see, all three “medium” nibs have different thicknesses; it is similar to clothing, every brand has there own definition of what a medium is.

Common issues

[showcase feathering, ghosting, bleeding]

The issues above can be caused by a couple of things, but the main culprit is usually the paper. If you start using fountain pens, then you will most likely also need to change the type of paper you are using. A couple of recommendations would be anything Rhodia or Clairefountaine and [black red something], usually 80g/m^2.

There are reasons that fountain pens have lost popularity, and it's not just the above. Cost is a big one, pens can get costly, then you have to get the ink, then the cartridge converter... Speaking of ink, refilling is another one: it can get quite messy. Convenience is another big one; fountain pens can be quite fragile, one bad fall and the nib could be damaged. You also have to learn to write with one, but that's easy. Just keep the nib at a consistent angle with respect to the page, avoid rotation and don't apply too much pressure on the page.

The but

But writing with a fountain pen is a very satisfying experience, and having different colours, styles, thicknesses... options is unmatched by regular old ballpoint pens. Your writing will also look sick as hell, and you will also look cool writing — yov mvst fvlfill yovr scribe monk fantasies. I think it gives character to the writing, more so than a ballpoint pen/pencil would. So go out, buy a cheap one and a cartridge, try it out and have some fun.

If the title didn't make it clear, this article is about the author Michael Crichton and his work. This article contains spoiler that are blacked out, highlight the text to reveal the content.

Dragon Teeth

This whole investigation started when I re-read Dragon Teeth. There we follow the adventures of William Johnson who, after losing a bet to one of his student peers at Yales, has to accompany a paleontologist to dig dinosaur bones in the Wild West. The year is 1876 and the war is raging between the Natives and the American “settlers”; roads are traitorous and so are the people. Will he come back from this expedition alive? Although enjoyable, albeit a bit simplistic, there were glaring flaws in this story that no author should ever have left in the final version of their book. One example I will give, and this happens many times during the book, is defusing any future tension a couple of chapters ahead. To be more precise: “The heroes were walking for days without water and in scorching heat. One of them always stopped the group telling them he saw someone following them in the far-off distance. He was delirious, the rest of the group said, given the current conditions it wasn't surprising. Every time he yelled, they would all turn around and look in the distance, none of them saw anything, any of those times. So they didn't worry about it. They would soon realise they were wrong” or “This man seemed trustworthy and from studying him from afar, looked kind and honest. He would soon realise his first impressions were wrong.“. Those are paraphrases of some events happening in the books, the worst part is that the subversion of expectation they are advertising either happens half a dozen chapters after or never for the second example. Every single event or reveal is defused chapters ahead. That and having obvious plot holes and character arcs that are given up on made me feel like the guy writing this book was an amateur. But he isn't, he is allegedly an accomplished author. Or he was an accomplished author; he died in 2008. This book came out in 2017: the math ain't mathing. This is a “found manuscript” from him that was published with little change. I can only assume this was a draft and all the flaws and all were things we would correct. That explains everything – how awful was I to judge the man's work on a draft. So I picked up some of his other books and tried to get a better idea of his work.

Jurrassic Park

I won't make the affront of giving you a synopsis for this book; I will assume everybody has heard of, if not seen, the movie. Although the synopsis is the same as the movie, the content of the book ranges from mildly to wildly different. The tone is also more serious and tense here. I will not hide the fact that I was never a fan of the movie which I found pretty boring, but here, the tension and the goriness keeps at the edge of your seat, at first. Spoilers ahead. There are no issues for the first half of the book, and the author takes his time to place the setting and sell us on how this park came to be. It is interesting to read about what was considered super-high-tech in the 90's. However, most of the time is spent describing things that are a bit useless, instead of the characters. The characters are usually archetypes without much depth, which I thought was a shame, since more development may have explained some of their decision further down in the book. And god the kids are annoying, and so is Malcolm. The latter suffers from “scientist written by non-scientist” syndrome; his opinion of science is very naïve and immature, he's just a mouth-piece for the author. Even picturing the glorious abs of Jeff Goldblum while he was on scene (in the book) did not manage to make me like the character more. Grant is the most present, but he still doesn't get much more development, and the secondary characters unfortunately go through an even rougher treatment. But this book's reputation doesn't hinge on its characters, but on its action, so let's take a look at that. I think that the betrayal by that one employee (the guy who gets spat on by the dinosaur) is much better done here than in the movie. Events unfold in a satisfying manner and in the end, we see why/how so much chaos was caused by his actions. The scene with the Jeep and the T-Rex is also very well done here, with a caveat, it is super tense and the fear of the characters, and their illogical actions caused by it, is well conveyed. The caveat is that despite all the carnage, almost everyone survives. You were in the jaws of the T-Rex? T'is but a scratch. Were tossed down the side of the hill, while being in a car smashed by the T-Rex? You just need an Advil. Worry not though, there is plenty of death going on afterwards, just not the main characters. Action scenes in general were pretty effective. Overall, the story was interesting up till the end where it falls off in a catastrophic manner; I think the author didn't really know how to end. Despite the grim picture I have painted (for dramatic effect), the book is actually quite good if the lack of character depth is not a deal breaker for you.

The Lost World

The follow-up to Jurassic Park was brought about by the success of the movie from Spielberg. This was the first time that Crichton wrote a sequel to one of his novels, which lead to some issues. First, he brought Malcolm back from the dead, second is that he had to create another dinosaur island, the first one having been obliterated by the Guatemalan government. This did injure my suspension of disbelief, as well as let a “well isn't this convenient” sigh out of me. We are not off to a good start. Let's move on to the synopsis: A guy in Ian (Malcolm)'s class thinks because of cHAoS tHeORy there must be an island with dinosaurs on it that was never been discovered by humans. Ian is like: bet, if you give me proof that dinosaurs still exist I will go with you on an expedition to that island (even though I know of an island that had dinosaurs on it that actively tried to escape). The guy prepares the super secret expedition helped with two kids (of course) a mechanic and other people that I don't recall. They find where the island with the dinosaur would be, and luck would have it the guy finds a dinosaur carcass and gets a sample to bring to Ian, forcing him to go to the island. Before they depart for the island all together, my man decides to scout the dinosaur island himself with another hunter dude who immediately gets rekt by raptors. The guy makes the very rational decision to go deeper into the island to save him. The rest of the crew, Ian, the mechanic and his minions and a scientist have to save both of them. Of course, the kids hide in the back of a car and are transported to that island. The disdain I have for this book probably transpires through this half-asses preview and I didn't read further than that. If there is one thing that I cannot bear and will not stand for is people doing stupid things that are completely out of character just because we need the story to move on. Malcolm would never have agreed to go on that expedition, no matter what proof he was given; he literally died during the last one. The guy who spend years carefully and meticulously preparing his expedition would not just rush ahead to “scout”. After they get rekt, Malcom would just tell the rest of the team that they got murked by dinosaurs, so no need to try to save them; they're dead. The super prepared and smart team would have checked the back of the cars/trailers for the kids who begged to go on the expedition with them and who, after being told no, were suspiciously obedient. Everything feels contrived, nothing matters and I don't care for any of the characters; they all deserve to die. Crichton did not write a proper sequel, nor should he have. It is clear from the last book that he didn't know how to end it, let alone plan for a sequel.

Timeline

A group of students and their supervisor are conducting research in the ruins of castles in France along the Dordogne River. Digs are going as planned until their supervisor is sent to the HQ of ITC, the big secret corporation funding them. After their supervisor being gone (missing?) for a few days, his students start digging up some strange artifacts; a pair of modern glasses and parchment paper with the word 'HELP' written in contemporary english. After sending it to the lab they are bewildered; both of them date back hundreds of years ago. They have no time to ponder on their discovery, and still without any news from their supervisors, they are being summoned to ITC HQ. I did have to force myself to finish this book, maybe because I read it right after La Passe-mirroir: Les fiancés de l'hivers & Les Disparus du Clairedelune, which, as I mentioned in my previous article, I found to be masterpieces. There is no comparison in the character development here; it is as lacking as in Jurassic Park, some choices are even a bit weird with characters doing a 180 on their very under-developed character. The pacing is also very strange, I found it to be kind of a snooze-fest in the beginning and very rushed at the end. There are also constant switches between past and present which break the pace, especially when usually nothing of substance is being said in the latter. The insistence of the author on explaining how time-travel works, and trying to make it believable is also a waste of time. He tries to ground it in “science” (he invokes the all-mighty quantum mechanics) going into really intricate details. It will bore people that aren't physics savvy and the ones that are will easily realise that it is at the very best pseudo-scientific garbage and that he hasn't the slightest idea of what quantum mechanics is. This is not only referenced once but appears throughout the book, every time making me roll my eyes so hard that I believe I have tied a knot with my optic nerve. Story-wise (spoilers ahead): I honestly couldn't be bothered to keep track of everyone; they were introduced once under different names, with bare minimum depth, and then mentioned again 50 pages later – did they expect me to remember who they are? I did understand enough to see that our protagonists are in general mary-sues: guy from the present whose only training with medieval weapons is self-teaching with immobile mannequins; he will not only be able to hold his own, but best five trained guards at once in the past. Other (weak) guy from the present with no training; he can also best professional swordfighters from the past. Gal who does rock-climbing in the present with all modern-day equipment and safeties; without that equipment, she's spider-girl in the past, climbing whole towers and churches alike. I am a bit bad faith here, but it felt like that, even if I am taking it to the extreme. I did not care for any character, or what happened to them, and neither should you; don't read the book.

So, Crichton bad? Well, Crichton not for me. I have read the synopsis of his other work and the premises are usually very interesting and creative, but it doesn't seem like his writing can carry them really far. A huge flaw of his in my eyes is the treatment of characters, it is very minimal. I enjoy character-driven plots and all the Crichton has to offer is usually action-driven plots, where characters are contrived to do stuff because the story demands it, with little regard for their own character motivations. So, although not bad (who am I to judge), not for me.

Thank you for reading my logorrhea, Eddie