Fantastic Fest '06 Isolation (with The Descendant)

Cows.

Why is it always cows?

They're everywhere, in tornadoes, shilling for cheese, being abducted, they're everywhere! (They even have guns! Cows with guns!) And now they're here to kill you- horribly, bloodily, and if they don't kill you, they'll give you their evil virus. And it's scary, folks, scary!

I'm not kidding, really. It's a movie about killer cows. Granted, it's a freakish genetic experiment gone horribly awry (big surprise), and it's technically a killer calf, not a cow, but still.

It's the old story we're all familiar with. Down on his luck man lets driven scientist into his life and doesn't ask too many questions. Financial desperation leads to complacency, and complacency leads to disaster. Science isn't always the answer, and it can't save you from the monster at the door.

The production values are excellent. It's slick, frantically paced, the sound and the effects add to the movie, not detract. Very rarely do you get a monster movie that is able to resist showing the entire monster, and here we're very glad we only get the glimpses. But what we do see, and what our imagination fills in for us, is more than adequate to make even the most jaded movie goer look over his or her shoulder. There are shadows, pools, corners, barns, and labs and the monster can be in any of them. It is a very dark movie. Dark, wet and cold. And while the ending is a cliched as any I've seen, it was still one of the most satisfying films of the festival.

Cows. Go figure.

And I have to say, it's paired excellently with The Descendant, a simple tale of a pair of hitmen on a job. Just a simple job that is anything but. It's a professional production; the actors, stunts and effects are pristine, and while I've seen this general plot before, it felt fresh and still managed to give me the chills.

Fantastic Fest '06 Hatchet (with If I Had a Hammer)

Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!

There is nothing redeeming in this movie, it's glorious! It's a slasher flick in the truest sense of the word. There's a thin skin of a plot, a passel of stock characters, a freakish monster of killer, and... was that Robert (Freddy Krueger) Englund, and Tony (Candyman) Todd, in cameos? Why yes, yes it was! And there were plenty more where that came from.

I'd go into some sort of analysis, but there really isn't a point. Folks on vacation go on a tourist-trap of a haunted swamp tour. Big, bad, hard-to-kill, killer guy with a tragic back story starts hacking. Blood, guts, and a trail of bodies later and there you have it.

Famous Last Words: Fun Times!

Hatchet showed with If I Had a Hammer which is an animated look at what would happen if Thor had to replace his hammer at the local hardware store. Funny as hell.

Fantastic Fest '06 Piano Tuner of Earthquakes (with Existence)

It's not very often I walk out of a movie not knowing exactly what I've seen, but that's what's happened here.

It can be a good thing, in theory, to see something I don't quite understand. It can give me something to mull over, or something to examine. I can discuss abstract symbolism or the conflict of the rational mind and irrational art. I could ponder the nature of obsession, possession, and the dual nature of creation and destruction. I could almost admire the Phantom of the Opera-esque adaptation of a mythic morality tale like the The Nightingale.

I could marvel at the intricately animated automatons and be haunted by their purpose. I could stand awed by the dreamlike quality of the film's cinematography. I could be chilled by the isolation of the seaside setting, the nearby woods, and the elegant cage created by a brilliant madman. I could be seduced by the sultry housekeeper and protective of the naive Piano Tuner invited into this tableau.

Or I could be pissed off that I wasted this much time on a movie that began with a decent plot, OK acting, and wonderful art direction, but ultimately degenerated into a near-incomprehensible mess of sexual imagery, pretty animations, and an ending that makes the whole thing feel like it was a pastel, psychedelic hallucination brought upon by a bad night at the opera, insomnia, and a burlesque show.

Guess which one I'm leaning toward.

Famous Last Words: Huh?

Existence, on the other hand, was a wonderful short whose oddball images and cast of characters fit the premise perfectly. And the disorientation they create were perfectly suited to the journey the main character's on.

Fantastic Fest '06 AICN Screening- Apocalypto

Wow, score one for Ain't It Cool News.

AICN got Mel Gibson to let them screen a rough cut of Apocalypto for the VIP ticket holders. And to boot, Mel and his leading actor, Rudy Youngblood, stuck around afterwards for a Q&A.
For the sake of my sanity, I'm going to limit my comments to the movie; the Q&A, while entertaining, was fairly standard, and I'm sure AICN will have something up shortly.

First of all, it was a rough cut, fx weren't done, the score was temporary, and even Mel admitted he was still shaving the middle. (Which I had to admit dragged.) But even with that, I have reservations about the movie.

My issue is this: one man's archetype is the basis of another man's cliche, and I tend to the latter. There really isn't anything original in the plot. Man has happy family, man is taken from happy family, man escapes, outruns the bad guys, and returns to said family. I'm sorry, but I think I've seen this a few times. The novelty here is the setting (spectacular) and the whole dialect/subtitle issue (I... got nothing, I don't speak Mayan).

That said; it will be a beautiful movie, it's visually stunning, and very well researched from what I've seen. James Horner is working on the soundtrack, and I'm sure it will be up to his usual spectacular standards, and the chase scene at the end was wonderful even in its rough form. Will it be an enjoyable way to spend an afternoon, yes. Is it going to change the world of cinema as we know it, no. And watch Youngblood, if he doesn't get stuck in a type-casting rut, he may be one to watch.

Famous Last Words:
I'm not waiting in any long lines, but if I see it again I'm sure I'll be entertained. Not necessarily a bad thing.

Fantastic Fest '06 The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning

I know, I know, I said I was going to go see something else, but when I saw the New Line security team scanning people with metal detector wands and making people turn off their cell phones, I just had to get in on the fun.

I didn't really have any great expectations. I liked the original, but nothing else (remake included) really grabbed my attention. But this, wow. I mean, WOW. I haven't seen f'd-up family values like this since House of 1000 Corpses (and the Devil's Rejects as well).

I don't really want to give anything away, but suffice it to say, this totally blew the '03 remake out of the water. You don't waste much time on back story, although what's there is perfectly suited to the plot, and once the blood starts flowing it is incessant. Horror villains are always kinda like the Energizer Bunny of Doom, but this is brutal. Gore, gore and more galore. And some of it with that dark, sick, humorous variety that almost makes you want to laugh if you weren't so busy squirming in your seat. I have to say I'm with this guy (scroll to the bottom) in wondering who did what to whom to get this an R from the MPAA. (And after, the director told the audience that two of the goriest scenes were pretty well shaved to get it, hello, DVD!) I think it was the fact that there was no nudity.

There is a bear trap, meathooks, and, of course the chainsaw. But no nudity.

And here's the kicker. Leatherface doesn't become a major player until the almost the third act. The whole movie is driven by R. Lee Ermey, who is one of those quintessential, "Hey, It's That Guy!" types. Only now he's sick, demented, and he's just trying to care for his family. Awwww, it would be sweet if it weren't completely psychotic.

Famous last words:
Nothing will ever approach the original, just by the virtue of it being the original, but this comes damn close.

And to answer the burning question: Yes, you do find out where Leatherface got his leather face.

Fantastic Fest '06 Haze (with Oculus)

Oculus is an excellent example of the KISS principle. Keep It Simple, Stupid. One room, one man, one creepy-ass mirror. Clocking in at just over half an hour, it's long for a "short," but it really doesn't feel like it, as the plot unfolds at its own pace without feeling rushed. The director has paced the action/drama very well within the confines of this piece, and the actor does an excellent job of toe-ing the line between sanity and madness, right up until he crosses over it.

This piece is an excellent example of the never-ending struggle to rationalize the irrational or to prove the un-provable. It's a scientific study of a most unscientific event; and like all rational beings in the horror genre, the descent to madness comes when our protagonist's rational underpinnings are ripped out from underneath him and all he's left with is his fear. This is assuming our scientist isn't "mad" to begin with. After all, he's convinced the mirror killed his parents. But this is all theory, and let's move on...

The color palette (or in this case, complete lake thereof), works to create the clinical setting the protagonist desires for his experiment. It is clean, sterile, and away from outside influence. It is also cut-off, isolated, and completely without refuge. There are some technical sound issues, echoes and the like, but the usage of the clock alarms and phone rings add to the distortion of time and breakdown of the protagonist's awareness of anything but the mirror.

I have one major gripe with the short, and unfortunately it's somewhat linked to the ending. I'll try to keep this as general as possible, but it's still kinda spoilery. Throughout the piece the history of the mirror is relayed to the audience through a series of stories, people die, people disappear, people kill other people. Got that. Mirror bad. Check. The whole creepiness of the set-up is that no one really knows what the mirror does, and I think it should have stayed that way. Let me put it like this, the freakiest thing about The Blair Witch Project was that you never saw the witch. You saw things happen, you saw the campers freak out, but you never saw who/what was behind it. The scariest things are what we pull out of our own memories, and once you show the "monster," you're done. Glimpse it out of the corner of your eye, catch it's reflection, feel its breath on your neck, but in a piece like this, it's best left unseen. Once fear has a face and a name it's dimished. Which isn't to say that what we saw in the theatre wasn't creepy, believe me, it was, I just think it would have been much more effective in the abstract.

And speaking of abstract, let's move onto the main feature, Haze.

One part Saw, one part Cube, and Asian to boot. I should love this, but I don't. I was actually kinda disappointed. Don't get me wrong, it's creepy and claustrophobic as all hell. (I didn't immediately think, "It's the Habitrail(c) from Hell!" for nothing.) The monotone concrete walls with their blind turns, and a well-developed bleakness to the entire production design from costume to lighting adds to the paranoia and anxiety. The traps are vicious, but not entirely original. (Although I have to admit, there's one that set my teeth on edge and reminded me how long it's been since I went to the dentist.) But it seems to jump in continuity, and the ending leaves a great deal to be desired.

The concept is solid, a man wakes up with no memory, a nasty stomach wound, and only a series of trap-laden tunnels in front of him. But it's not very trap-laden, this movie is only about 50 minutes long, and that's not quite enough time to rachet up the tension to a point where the audience is squirming, anxious and desperate to know what's going to happen next. There's also a lack of exposition, which is normal for J-horror, but what we do get is mainly in a voice-over. That's not horrible, except for the fact that it is repeated almost verbatim 10-15 minutes later when the lead meets up with his fellow captive. Why have the V-O at all? And the ending...? I don't expect my horror movies to have rational endings, but I'd like to know that there is one. There's a mishmash of a montage that makes no sense of time, place, or even if it's relevant to the plot. Not cool.

Famous last words:
This may be the only time where I recommend a feature so you can see the short. Haze isn't entirely bad, but Oculus was better and worth the time.

Premier pick: Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip

I took me awhile, but a few years ago, I finally "got" Aaron Sorkin. I'm not saying it all made sense, or looked nice, or felt good, but I was there. I was with it, there, in the moment.

The show was The West Wing, and after a four-hour marathon, I was hooked. Unfortunately, it was his last season on the show, but after going back and seeing those first incredible seasons, I knew I had found a writer I would follow almost anywhere. Not an actor, or a concept, or a genre, but a writer.

So is it any surprise that as soon as I heard about Studio 60, I was waiting in rapt anticipation? Not really.
Is it any surprise that as soon as I found out you could get the pilot from Netflix it went to the top of my queue?
Again, not really.
Was I disappointed?
Not really.

Here's what I like about Sorkin. It doesn't have to be original material, but it sure feels that way sometimes. A Few Good Men- it's a courtroom drama, we've all seen it, but it twists and turns the definition of guilt and responsibility around and up until it hits the ceiling... and breaks through. The American President- a romance. Pretty cliche until you start adding the politics and image sculpting in. Relationships are hard, policy is harder, both can be impossible.

And while we're on policy and politics, let's look at that good 'ole West Wing. I have NEVER seen a show on the silver or small screens that has made politics look as hard and as easy as that show did. It was fast, it didn't grind to a halt every time something had to be explained, it kept moving and somehow we all kept up. It made you think, and didn't assume you're a child. We're not talking about programming for the lowest denominator and how many shows can say that today?

But let's move on to the focus of this post, shall we?

The premise is simple, a show with-in a show. This is simple. Get the show on the air, keep the show on the air. Period. End of story. Beginning of drama. We've seen it in sitcoms (Murphy Brown) we've seen it in drama (Network) and now we get to see it in both. Because like all TV a la Sorkin, there is plenty to laugh at in Studio 60, and more drama than you can shake your remote at. It's been said before, and I'm sure will be said again, but what Sorkin did for politics in The West Wing, he's doing for TV. Is he preaching? Um, yeah. If you've seen Judd Hirsh's on-air rant you catch on pretty quick, and to say that Sorkin and his co-exec and director Tommy Schlamme are bringing a little real-life baggage to the project is an understatement, but who said truth was any less strange or fascinating than fiction?

The casting. Ensemble, if we're banking on anything, we're banking on Sorkin's name, not the cast's. Not that they're nobodies. Timothy Busfield and Bradley Whitford are Sorkin vets, and any one who hasn't seen Friends and Matthew Perry during its run has been living in a world without TV for over a decade now and I can't help you. Stephen Weber is a solid actor, as are most of the others.

Our weak point here is going to be Amanda Peet. Not that she's bad, I think she just has the farthest to go. Her character's a hard one, the executive who's going to be the push and pull on the show. She's going to be defending the Whitford and Perry characters while trying to keep them from going too far at the same time, and that's not a easy feat to portray. And she's young, as her character is written, and that adds another level of difficulty. Do I think she can do it? Yeah, but I think she's going to need an episode or two to get the kinks ironed out. Also to watch: The characters who play the "Big Three," or the three lead actors on the show, D.L. Hughley, Sarah Paulson and Nathan Corddry. We didn't see much of them in the pilot, but they will have a huge influence on the upcoming plots as they seem to have a great deal of influence, if not outright pull with their fellow castmates and the network.

I'm hooked, and I'm OK with that. But I'm picky and I have very high expectations for this show, as do most of the critics I've read. It's a long fall... let's hope we don't go over the cliff.

Who needs sleep? v2.0

Here we go again...

Sunday
Isolation
Dir. Billy O'Brein- Ireland- 94 minutes
A down-on-his-luck farmer allows genetic experimentation on his cattle. Gee, do you think that could be a bad idea?
Piano Tuner of Earthquakes (Trailer link)
Dir. Brothers Quay- Germany/France/UK- 99 minutes
A disturbed genius kidnapps Malvina, an opera star, in order to turn her into an immortal mechanical masterpiece. When an innocent piano tuner is called upon to service the malevolent abductor, he becomes entwined in the "perverse universe" of Malvina's captor. Looks like Phantom of the Opera meets The Nightingale.
Starfish Hotel
Dir. John Williams- Japan- 98 minutes
Yuichi Arisu loses himself in novels about a place called Darkland. His wife disappears, and the lines between what he reads and what he lives begin to blur. The police think he's guilty, there's an underground brothel and there is a man in a rabbit suit helping Arisu. And we're wondering why it's getting comparisons to Donnie Darko?
I'm on the fence on this one, there's another film playing at that time that I want to see, so we might change over... Moving on...
Broken
Dir. Simon Boyes and Adam Mason- UK- 110 minutes
Just in case the world doesn't have enough survival horror, here comes another one. It may be cliche, a mother and daughter kidnapped, mother subjected to horrors to protect her child. It's another I might jump theatres on- Crispin Glover's on the next screen over with Simon Says...
Frostbite
Dir. Anders Banke- Sweden- 95 minutes
What do you do when there are vampires in a town where dawn is a month away? Don't know, but I'm skipping a special presentation of the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre to find out!

Monday
Hatchet
Dir. Adam Green- 82 minutes
Teens go on a "Haunted Swamp Tour," murder, mayhem, and much nudity ensues. Campy it may be, but Harry Knowles from Ain't It Cool News is raving about it, and there's a cameo by Robert Englund. Like I'd miss that!
Bug (Trailer link)
Dir. William Freidken (Yes, the Exorcist, French Connection, that guy!)- 95 minutes
Ashley Judd, Harry Connick Jr., and psychosis. According to Roger Ebert, "A paranoid personality finds its mate, and they race each other to madness." I can't wait to see who hits the finish line first!
Ek Hasina Thi
Dir. Sriram Raghavan- India- 120 minutes
Indian. Gothic. Women's. Revenge. Flick. Got a problem with that?
Severance (Trailer link)
Dir. Christopher Smith- UK- 96 minutes
Screenwriter James Moran is presenting his unique slasher flick. What starts as something resembling The Office, or Office Space, quickly dissolves into a slasher film in the middle of the woods as the hapless employees of Palisade Defence start dropping. It's getting comparisons to Shaun of the Dead, and I get to play, Hey! It's that gal from 24!. Hi, Laura Harris!

Oi, leaving off there. Anime, Freddy Krueger, and Darren Aronofsky to come!

Who needs sleep?

The schedule's up, I made my choices, now all I have to do is wait. Here's where I'll be and what will be keeping me up at night.

Thursday
Haze
Dir. Shinya Tsukamoto- Japan- 49 minutes
Saw meets Cube as a man wakes up in a small, cramped space and a stomach wound that is killing him slowly.
Midnight Movies: From the Margin to the Mainstream
Dir. Stuart Samuels- 88 minutes
The directors, critics, and theatre owners that created, panned, and proudly showed "Midnight Movies" like, Night of the Living Dead, Pink Flamingos, Eraserhead, The Rocky Horror Picture Show, and many others talk about these "cult" films and their journey into the wide, wacky world.
Last Supper
Dir. Osamu Fukutani- Japan/Hong Kong- 92 minutes
Based on the book by Kei Ohishi, and produced as a multi-country project, some said this could never be done. Never say never, so here is a gore-fest of a brilliant plastic surgeon with a taste for human flesh and the murderous impulses to fulfil it.
Parasite 3D (Link goes to a trailer)
Dir. Charles Band- 85 minutes
The first starring role for Demi Moore! Yup, it's that Parasite movie presented in 3D, with corporate assassins, a mad scientist, hoods, and... parasites. Charles Band is in town to present it and do a talk-back.

Friday
Inside (Link goes to a trailer)
Dir. Jeff Miller- 100 minutes
"...voyeurism gone very, very wrong." Really, do we need to know more than that? Jeff Miller's in town for the Q&A after the film.
The Beach Party at the Threshold of Hell
Dir. Jonny Gillette and Kevin Wheatley- 97 minutes
Post-Apocalpyse, year 2096, The Vice-King of New America- Tex Kennedy (heir to the Kennedy clan), android bodyguards, and the great-great-great grandson of Fidel Castro. Oh! And there's Benny, the rightful King, too! Yea, ya got me, too, but it looks like it will be fun!
Zhest (Junk)
Dir. Denis Neimand- Russia- 127 minutes
An investigative reporter follows the trail of a pedophile and rapist into B.F.E. Russia. It's fringe vs. mainstream as the reoprter devles into the often surreal Russian landscape where the denizens hunt the city-folk for fun.
Unrest
Dir. Jason Todd Ipson- 85 minutes
Stuck without a home until her student loans come through, first year med student Alison is living in the hospital where she takes her gross anatomy class. Curious, she looks into the history of her cadaver, and the murders begin. The director (a former teacher and surgeon himself), had the cast filming in a real morgue, with real bodies. Fun.

Saturday
Tideland (Link to homepage.)
Dir. Terry Gilliam- 122 minutes
You want more than just a title and a director? OK, Jeliza-Rose has lost her mother to a heroin OD and her Dad's taken her out to a rural setting to recover. She talks to Barbie-doll heads. There's a woman who's always in a bee-keeper's helmet. It's "odd" and "taboo." What can I say, it's Gilliam.
Nightmare
Dir. Dylan Bank- 111 minutes
What would you do if you woke up with a strange woman and a video camera that shows you committing a violent murder in a room that's now completely clean? You'd make a movie of it, of course. The line between film and fact blurs as the director struggles to find who's filming the murders he can't remember, as he's filming the murders he's not convinced he's not commiting. Confused yet?
The Hamster Cage
Dir. Larry Kent- Canada- 92 minutes
Ahh, holidays. Inappropriate gifts, family you love to hate, and a "hell of Oedipal scenerios." It's dark comedy at its freakish best!
Lie Still (Link goes to the trailer.)
Dir. Sean Hogan- UK- 80 minutes
It's a haunted house movie. A VERY haunted house movie.
Blood Trails (Link goes to the trailer.)
Dir. Robert Krause- USA/Germany- 90 minutes
A chance encounter leads to a night of violent sex that cyclist Anne would rather forget. Escaping to the mountains with her boyfriend, a hellish encounter with her one-night-stand leads to a hellish race downhill. Lion's Gate has snatched it up as the next Haute Tension or Wolf Creek, so look for a wide release next year.

And this is just the first three days! More to come, gore to come.
(Sorry, I just couldn't help it....)

Counting down!

So I finally printed out my festival schedule, and I'm probably more happy than I really should be.

I can't help it, my greedy little inner demons are going to get to feast on some of the best horror, sci-fi, fantasy, and any combination thereof, movies that are out there to be found. There are panel discussions, and special hosts, and all sorts of goodies to be had. Advance screenengs of movies like Gilliam's Tideland and Aronofsky's The Fountain. Asian, Irish, American, and films from all over will be screened for a very enthusiastic crowd.

I will not sleep and I will spend way too much money on the awesomeness Drafthouse goodies.

It's gonna be great.

The biggest fictional history book I've ever read.

"Many books are to be read, some are to be studied, and a few are meant to be lived in for weeks. Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell is of this last kind." -Michael Dirda, The Washington Post

To which I add "No, sh*$, Sherlock. And also, whoever started touting this as the "adult's Harry Potter," should be shot. Aside from the magic, we're not even in the same genre. This isn't a fantasy, it's a Gothic Victorian historical.

Now, I pride myself on being a fairly voracious reader. When I decide I like something I'll burn right through it, stay up late, take it to lunch with me, whatever it takes to get to that next page, chapter, or verse. Which I suppose is my problem with this book, even after reading Jonathan Strange cover to cover, I still can't figure out if I liked it at all. Which is why it took me somewhere in the neighborhood of seven months to finish. I know I don't hate it, so that's something I suppose. There are parts I know I enjoyed, and I find the entire concept to be fascinating, but as an entire piece? I finished it weeks ago and I'm still scratching my head.

So let me attempt to elucidate, and yes, I'm using the fifty-cent term for a reason and not to sound smart. As defined by my handy online Merriam-Webster: elucidate... transitive verb : to make lucid especially by explanation or analysis a text; intransitive verb : to give a clarifying explanation. Which, in my opinion, is the whole reason this book was written. The author, Susannah Clarke, is so intent on explaining everything to us, the whys, the whos, and the whens, that I think she occasionally forgets that something has to happen in order to justify all these explanations. The book would move along for a bit and then come to a grinding halt of exposition, footnotes, "real-world" parallels, and general theory.

Part of this, I'm sure, is because of the structure she has set herself. In the most simple terms I can use, Clarke set out to write a historical novel in Victorian style, only with magic. Not a bad idea, but she took the "historical" part a bit too far. Don't get me wrong, she's done her research into the Napoleonic wars and it shows. I fact, I'd say the "war bits" were the best paced, and by far outstrip the rest of the book in clarity. Clarke bounces back and forth between Strange's adventures in the field and Norrell's maneuverings back in London almost effortlessly, and weaves them into the wider narrative fairly deftly. And it's blazingly obvious that she's planned out the fictional history of the magical side of things extensively.

Or should I say excessively? Footnote: 1 : a note of reference, explanation , or comment (see excerpt, 5th page) usually placed below the text on a printed page 2 a : one that is a relatively subordinate or minor part; footnote to architectural history. Now, I'm all for footnotes. They're great to clarify points, identify different schools of thought, or to prove that the author isn't just making stuff up. And that last reason is why Ms. Clark has used them here. I get that, it's a wonderful touch that adds that certain layer of "reality" to the whole piece. It feels like I could go look this stuff up if I wanted too. It's the "relatively subordinate" part she struggles with.

Footnotes are meant to compliment the piece, not become pieces of their own. Case in point- on page 61, one of the characters refers to a legal case involving magic. Clarke inserts a footnote, quite properly, to explain the relevance of the case to the conversation at hand. In any other text, the author would add a few sentences and we'd move on. (1) Heck, as this is a work of fiction, and the footnotes are a nifty device, I'd allow a few short paragraphs. Instead there's a page and a half of small-font text, at least three if not four pages if it were regular sized. To add insult to injury, the next footnote is longer, and includes actual dialogue. They do nothing to move the plot along, and they are a distraction, not a clarification to the reader. I should not forget what I was reading before I reach the end of the relevant footnote. If there were only three, maybe four the entire piece, I could forgive. But there's one of these babies in almost every chapter. (One stretches over five pages!!!) My history professors would flay me alive, these aren't footnotes any longer, they're appendices.

But if you can ignore them, or do what I do and finish the chapter, then go read the footnotes, then you can get through it OK. Clarke is still a little enamored of her own historical creation, as are most of the critics whose glowing reviews pepper periodicals everywhere, but they're not entirely wrong. Clarke adheres to the Gothic Victorian writing style she's chosen, even going so far as to reflect the appropriate gender bias in the treatment of Lady Poole and Mrs. Strange. Speech patterns, atmosphere, and class relationships are all accurate, and while the casual reader might get lost, or not even know where to begin, after awhile you can pick up the rhythm, and adjust your mindset to what's being presented. This is not an easy writing style to master, and while I think her editors should have been a little more liberal with their little red pens, it's not a total disaster.

My advise- If you like magic and a good gothic tale of mystery, magic and mayhem and can make it through books like Rebecca, Edgar Allen Poe's writings or even Dracula and Frankenstein without the language and style (all 846 pages of it) driving you up a wall, read it. You'll enjoy it. Just take it slow.

1. For example: Tubbs v. Starhouse an action in which Mr. Starhouse, a former employee of Mr. Tubbs, sued his employer for defamation of character by claiming that Mr. Starhouse was a faerie. The resulting strife caused Starhouse to leave Tubbs' employ and suffer unemployment and injury to his reputation. The courts found in favor of Mr. Starhouse, making him the first person to ever be declared "human" by the courts. It is also interesting to note that it illustrates the belief that, as recently as a few years ago, many Englishmen and women still believed that fairies walked among them. See, simple! Footnote- not footchapter!