Review: A Glimpse Inside the Mind of Charles Swan III

The mentality following the termination of a serious relationship has been the subject of countless pieces of art, but two films really brought film to new levels on the topic. Those films were Annie Hall and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. In both cases, you got a well developed sense of the internal despair of a hard breakup and the mental inability to stop analyzing and going over what happened, what was right, and, ultimately, why it all came tumbling down. Charlie Sheen returns to theaters for the first time in nine years in Roman Coppola's A Glimpse Inside the Mind of Charles Swan III. Coppola's most recent cinematic efforts include co-writing the screenplays for Wes Anderson's The Darjeeling Limited and Moonrise Kingdom. Here, he attempts to add another story to the genre so incredibly well defined by Annie Hall or Eternal Sunshine.

Charles Swan III is a rampant womanizer, but he has been with a woman that he has really fallen for, but she has broken up with him following her discovery of a drawer filled with dirty pictures of his past girlfriends and hookups. Now, he is devastated and falling behind in his work as a graphic designer. Rather than deal with the issues, he is both stuck in the past and his fantasies of both the world and how the past could have worked. The film feel surreal from frame one, and never really gets to a point where the stylized universe it is set in is differentiated with some sense of reality. This style walks a fine line between style and substance. Woody Allen showed in the 70s how the two can actually mesh quite will. Roman Coppola, unfortunately, does not pay the same amount of attention to developing his characters as he does to their costumes or the soundtrack.

Lincoln (Or, Spielberg's Middle School History Lesson)

What do you know about Abraham Lincoln? In America, at least, middle school and high school tend to give off this mythical impression of the president that ended the Civil War and freed the slaves. There's generally some attention directed to the importance of the thirteenth amendment, as well as a basic understanding of the key players in the war. You know the generals, you know some of the politicians, and you know the political implications of Lincoln's actions. So, when Steven Spielberg announces he's making an Abraham Lincoln biopic starring Daniel Day-Lewis and a million other great actors, you're incredibly excited to see what the director of such biting true story films like Schindler's List or Amistad will bring to the table. At least, that was my reaction. This movie could teach me so much more about the depth of these incidents I've been learning about my whole life, right? Well, walking out of Lincoln, I honestly can't say I learned anything at all.

Does this mean Spielberg has failed to make a compelling film? Well, no, not really. In fact, there are parts of Lincoln that left me far more moved than I thought I would be and overall it does have a certain compelling quality to these historical scenes that are predictable, simplified, and ultimately tell you nothing new. The vast majority of the film details the courtroom drama of passing the thirteenth amendment to abolish slavery as the Civil War is moving towards closure. Spielberg introduces you to a wide variety of characters played by the likes of Hal Holbrook, David Strathairn, Sally Field, James Spader, and an absolutely wonderful Tommy Lee Jones. Each actor brings a great energy to their respective historical roles and helps bring them to life. The acting is often powerful and sucks your heart into the scenes that your brain is assuring you are silly in their overdramatization or oversimplification. Such is an issue I had many times throughout the two hour run time.

As far as the performances go, most are applauding Daniel Day Lewis for his effort, but I have to say this was one of the least impressive performances I've seen from him. Let me of course make the important distinction here that a not-as-impressive Daniel Day Lewis performance is still likely to be among the top ten performances anyone will see all year. What I took issue with was this high pitched voice Day Lewis affected for the role. In historical accounts, Lincoln was documented as speaking in a more shrill, high pitch, which Day Lewis does his best to create. It works for the most part, but his high voice never changes pitch and is never really able to capture emotion outside of inflection. Not everyone speaks at the exact same pitch at every moment with only volume and speed fluctuating, and every other actor demonstrates a wider vocal range than our title character. This certainly was a character, for its performance and the screenplay aren't interested in painting a flawed man. This is undoubtedly that mythical figure you've heard about since you were a child.

Who am I to say that Abraham Lincoln wasn't this fable-spewing social genius at all times? Well, I'm not to say that at all, but let me just say it didn't feel all too real. I'm not here to argue the history when something simply doesn't work in the film. These characters do their best to seem genuine when Tony Kushner's screenplay paints so many of them as simple caricatures. If you're a good guy, you show some mild range of emotions, are a Republican, and hate slavery with a burning passion. If you're a bad guy, you're a close minded Democrat who hates blacks. Lazy expositional writing keeps you constantly aware that you are, in fact, watching a scripted version of events that were probably not so conveniently constructed. If Lincoln was a play, its cinematic shortcomings might feel a lot more at home, but unfortunately, this is a freaking Steven Spielberg movie.

Where is the sense of shock at the depth of characters impacting history singlehandedly we were so wonderfully exposed to in Schindler's List and Amistad? Where is the bite this once great director was so famous for? Are we forever going to be stuck with these long, overly sentimental dramas like War Horse? What bothers me even more than just how safe Lincoln is was the moments where you can really sense Spielberg waking up and beautifully directing a scene to a well deserved impact. There are these great little moments in Lincoln that make you wish there was more to talk about, either historically or just in terms of his wide cast of characters. This should have been a thought provoking movie, but instead we are left with a simple middle school history lesson that would certainly bore the hell out of middle schoolers.

6/10

Skyfall: Bond Goes Wrath of Khan

There are the occasional mainstream franchises that I absolutely adore. In most of those cases, I don't adore them by the time studios are finished with them, but there's some amount of love associated with the basic mythology and characters that carries into each new opus. Then, there are far more franchises I am either indifferent to or actively despise. The 007 series has been hanging around cinemas for 50 years now and I must confess I'm rather indifferent to the lot of them. I've seen a handful and yet none of them really left much of an impression. Most of them fell into the average category, with the only exception being Quantum of Solace, an embarrassment to all involved. That being said, Daniel Craig's more serious and realistic James Bond has always had a lot of promise to it and I went into Skyfall with the hope that the payoff I'd been hoping for since Casino Royale finally existed.

Skyfall is one of those movies that would no doubt play best to one who knew absolutely nothing about it, but for the sake of writing a review, I can't leave out all plot details. So here's my abbreviated paragraph giving you a small taste. MI6 is in trouble. A flash drive containing the names of every agent embedded in terrorist organizations around the world is stolen and released. Bombings target M (Judi Dench), the leader of MI6. James Bond (Daniel Craig), now the oldest agent in the organization is faced with the question: in the age of advanced technology, are field agents even necessary anymore when all this destruction can be caused with the use of a computer? Faced with a foe (Javier Bardem) unlike any of the traditional Bond villains with a personal vendetta and no grand conspiracy, and no fear of failure. This is truly a worthy adversary because, to use the old adage, this time, it's personal.

Seven Psychopaths: A Messy Tale About Writer's Block and Dognappers

I think I can speak for the majority of those interested in seeing Seven Psychopaths when I say writer/director Martin McDonagh set the bar extremely high with his debut In Bruges. In Bruges is just about as close to cinematic perfection as dark comedies get. It had a heart, it had a brain, and it was put together so well that you walked away very impressed. So, in the four years since, anticipation has been slowly growing higher and higher for McDonagh's sophomore effort. After all, he had proven his worth tenfold with a first film that's better than most directors can make in a lifetime.

Here it is, Seven Psychopaths, a well marketed comedy with a very impressive ensemble lined up. Colin Farrell returns to play Marty, a screenwriter struggling to finish writing his next film, having only a few ideas and the title Seven Psychopaths. His best friend Billy (Sam Rockwell) and Hans (Christopher Walken) run a scam by kidnapping dogs for rewards, but when they steal a gangster (Woody Harrelson)'s little dog, the ante is upped and the three must run for their lives. Marty begins to think that this opportunity has afforded him the perfect material for his gestating project, but he must first live through the ordeal to reap the rewards.

So, what we're really dealing with here is a very meta film created by a man who no doubt found himself in the exact same situation his aptly named protagonist is in. It was a great title, but McDonagh didn't want to write about violence, he wanted to write about peace. So, instead, he wrote about him not wanting to write about violence while writing about violent characters, some of whom just want peace. It may sound clever, but it's really just laziness if you ask me. Now, if this exact sort of approach to writer's block hadn't been already perfected ten years ago in the brilliant film Adaptation, you might be reading a completely different sort of review. Instead, this film finds itself in the shadow of its ultimately superior predecessor.

What makes this approach lazy now but brilliant ten years ago? you might ask. Well, McDonagh decided to drop all the subtlety or cohesiveness of his previous script and just go all out with being clever and silly here. The themes aren't really themes because a character just states that he wants them to be the themes. There's nothing clever about expressing your themes so bluntly, and then failing to even expand upon the already stated themes by actually saying anything. That's more or less the problem. This is a messy collection of ideas that ultimately adds up to nothing and has no point. It's not really making a statement about the process of screenwriting, nor does it go to uncharted territory. The plot really fails to hold up once you give it any thought, and no doubt it only falls apart even more upon repeat viewings.

This flaw goes even further when the self commentary splattered throughout the script turns into shrugging off obvious flaws in the writing by acknowledging, "Hey, yeah, I know that's a problem, but at least I'm being clever by mentioning it." For example, the female characters in this all get killed if not in their first scene, after the first couple. They have no bearing on the plot and the two lead female actresses exist purely as sex objects. This is a common feature in action films, and McDonagh has the Christopher Walken character make a wisecrack about how badly Marty writes women. Yeah, really funny considering it's true. That's no excuse for it, sorry. The greatest offense of this sort to be found here, however, is another Walken line where he is criticizing Marty for thinking psychopaths are all that interesting. We've got a bunch of one note characters who, by the end of the film, are really not that interesting once you get to know them, and yes, this is indeed a problem in the film that cannot simply be shrugged off by admitting that the writing fails to create anything more than one dimensional, disturbed characters.

Even more disappointing than the source of this material is the fact that a hell of a lot of it is actually really funny. In a way, this film is more like a series of vignettes and short films combined under the facade that it creates one cohesive whole. That being said, I'll be damned if the parts themselves don't have moments of brilliance. The impeccable casting lets the actors create a myriad of great moments between the characters. All of the comedic timing comes off great, only these characters ultimately don't have a whole lot to do, and none of them have any real depth. That's the self admitted problem with psychopaths; they're not terribly complicated. Giving these great moments to Christopher Walken, Sam Rockwell, Tom Waits, and Woody Harrelson is a wonderful thing, and I loved seeing these great actors up on the screen. It's only too bad that the sum of these funny parts adds up to a whole lot of nothing.

In the end, we are left with a very underwhelming, if entertaining movie about writing a movie. The cleverness of the concept stops exactly at the concept and, though Martin McDonagh is a very creative man, his unpolished experiment here is ultimately a failure. I wish I could say this is one of those great projects born out of writer's block like Adaptation or Barton Fink, but I just couldn't help but feel this needed a few more drafts or even an entirely different approach to actually become the memorable film it admits it wants to be.

6/10

Sinister: The Scariest Movie of the Year

Can you believe it? Horror is back! It's been years since a movie this downright well done, emotionally gripping, and ultimately terrifying hit the cinemas. It's no secret that I really enjoy the Paranormal Activity series because they provide fun scares, but, let's face it, none of those really left you bothered after the first one. They're gimmicky but fun enough that you get over it. That's been what I look forward to in October since it seems the real scares don't exist anymore in the sea of mediocre horror remakes and retreads of the greats. You know what, though? Rest assured, Sinister brings back clever horror with a heart - and a bite.

Director/Co-Writer Scott Derrickson with C. Robert Cargill created the kind of original and spooky horror film that will (ideally) scar a generation of young teenagers for life. It's so well done not because there's a big scary bad guy or lots of gore. No, this is a well done movie for a very simple reason: intelligence. I credit a lot of the intelligence of the script to co-writer C. Robert Cargill, who was a critic for years over at Aint It Cool News. This guy has seen crappy horror and knows what mistakes to avoid. It's so refreshing to see a film that could so easily fall into every cliche in the book even given its own story which seems to lend itself to the same plot directions that have been used and reused for decades.

The plot follows Ellison Oswalt (played perfectly by Ethan Hawke), a true crime novelist far past his prime. It's been ten years since his last big hit and he's quickly falling into obscurity, but he has a plan to change this. In his last attempt to reach at that fame he used to achieve, Ellison has moved his family into a small town house of a murdered family where one of the children went missing. Most presumed the missing girl was long dead, but Ellison decides to do some further investigation and make a difference by solving the case and reaching old glory. As he investigates the murders, he is drawn further and further away from his wife and two children as he finds a box of old Super 8 footage reels in the attic that depict the murders of multiple families. Has he stumbled upon a serial murder that the police missed? Even more concerning, there are strange symbols and a shadowy figure in the images that cannot be overlooked, nor should they be.

Ultimately, this is a film that proves how unfortunate trailers are. It's a paradoxical predicament; seeing some of the movie makes you want to see more, but seeing more spoils things and make you wish you were seeing it completely fresh. It's best to forget the trailers as best as you can and simply let this film take you on its wild ride. Oh, and wild it is. Something especially clever about the film is how, in a year of so many found footage films that they no longer really make much of an impact, here we have the story of a man who manages to find terrifying footage. We get the same shock of seeing something that could be real, filmed by someone who is not a trained cinematographer, and it impacts the real story. There's no need for characters to film themselves because it becomes part of the plot itself.

Mark my words, there will not be a scarier movie released this year. With a film like this that hits all the right notes and leaves you disturbed and upset, I can't see another movie being more effective. We've got our latest installment of Paranormal Activity but that simply cannot capture the fresh fear Sinister harnessed so masterfully. Of course, a very significant difference between the two types of films is the character work. Both work because they actually craft characters, not cardboard cutouts or hot teens. Paranormal doesn't tend to strive to make you really care or root for its protagonists, however. It works well enough that you are scared silly when the action starts, but the deaths really aren't anything too depressing. (I'm looking at you, Micah). Sinister takes the opposite and ultimately more disturbing approach of crafting a cast of believable and innocent characters that you really don't want to die.

Ethan Hawke leads the family in a flawed but human performance that is very, very good. If the casting was off, this film could easily have turned silly instead of scary. He sees the deaths of all these old families and it's terribly disturbing. This film, while not overtly gory or ever going anywhere near the torture porn heights of the Saw franchise, is not for the faint of heart. You see a lot of innocent families get murdered and it's really not pleasant, but it serves the story and adds such a fantastically creepy atmosphere that you cannot help but see these and get sucked into the mystery just as much as the main character. When the stakes get raised, you're upset not simply because there is a weird noise, but because you cannot accept that harm could happen to this family. It's not okay, but it seems so likely.

This is a great horror movie. Plain and simple, this is horror done right. It's horrifying but not gratuitous. It treats the audience with intelligence and realizes how far it can take itself in any direction. There are real scares here, not simply jump scares. If you're looking for a great scary movie this October, you really don't need to look any further than Sinister. As for Paranormal Activity 4 coming out next week, well, I've had my serving of terror. Now, I'm ready for the icing on the cake.

8/10

A Biased Review of Frankenweenie

With a title like that, first of all, shame on you for clicking on this article. Of course, let me get all philosophical on you and turn things around by saying there is no such thing as an unbiased review of a movie. You don't read someone's opinions on art to exclude bias, but there's a lot leading to this particular bias. First of all, you've got the Tim Burton bias. Burton was once considered one of the great new minds in Hollywood, then 2001 happened and he spent a decade working on movies that were heartless and came off more like a Tim Burton impersonator than Burton himself. Then, this year, things changed and we're now seeing that old Burton that used to actually tell amusing and entertaining stories through his warped mind. Perhaps it's no coincidence that it's now that his films have finally stopped making money as well.

Pictured above is the guy, a weirdo if there ever was one. I don't mean that in a bad way at all. His weirdness was much of what made him such an interesting filmmaker in his early days, and Frankenweenie brings the heart back to his fantasy world. This is the Edward Scissorhands filmmaker we once loved, back with more to say. Frankenweenie is a stop motion film about a young boy named Victor Frankenstein (voiced by Charlie Tahan). Victor is one of many strange children in his class, but he's probably the least social. He's a genius and aspiring filmmaker, making stop motion disaster films in his basement with his one true friend, his dog Sparky. When Sparky gets tragically run over, Victor's world is all but ruined. He is saved only by the inspiration his kooky science teacher Mr. Rzykruski (voiced by Martin Landau) to do exactly what you'd expect given his name and the name of the film. With the power of lightning and science, Victor resurrects the corpse of Sparky. From here, things play out in a rising tension as things get quickly out of hand and things fall into a climax that serves as a perfect conclusion as well as a wonderful homage to the early horror films of Hollywood.

There's a lot this film says actually, though I'm not entirely convinced Burton was reaching for a whole lot more than simply telling a poignant and entertaining story. I suspect there's a lot of personal emotion brought into the story. This is a complete hunch, but I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn that young Tim, an aspiring filmmaker, was forced to play sports by his father, and his dog got run over. It also wouldn't completely catch me off guard if Tim Burton spent his free time playing with corpses, but that's just because he's really into having his characters look either pale and emaciated or completely obese. Death clearly has been an inspiration to his strange visual style throughout the years. The personal aspect of the film was no doubt intentional, but this brings me to my second bias as I sit down to write this review. My own dog, which I'd had for 16 years, died the day after I saw Frankenweenie.

To some extent, the way Burton's animation managed to capture the realistic movement and actions of a dog in Sparky, both alive and dead, makes the heartbreak so much more intense during the death and the subsequent pain Victor goes through. Burton's characters, for the first time since the early 90s, aren't quite realistic, but the emotional core of the film is easily to relate to, whether you've had a pet die or not. It's sad when it needs to be, but it doesn't wallow in despair. Victor is not the Victor Frankenstein of Mary Shelley's famous novel; as a result, he reanimates his dog out of love, not because he wants to be a god. This contrast is not lost in the film, however, as some competitive members of the community do follow the wrong path here, creating for the sake of creating, to disastrous but ultimately funny consequences. The love of a pet and the love of scientific exploration are hardly deep themes, yet I couldn't help but feel the film is just as much about capturing the emotions a young child has upon seeing the classic monster movies.

There are overt references to Frankenstein, Frankenstein's Bride, Dracula, The Wolfman, and even Godzilla to name the main ones. Like the above films, Frankenweenie is a black and white film about monsters, though it's certainly not a monster movie. These films inspired Burton not just on this film, but in the creation of his own Gothic cinematic style, and seeing this manifest here is quite fascinating. A twisted cinephile may consider this the companion piece to Paul Thomas Anderson's The Master, a film also about a dog and his master and the love they share for each other, though not quite as overtly.

Though the sum of Frankenweenie's parts may not add up to some great statement about the human condition or society, it's a wonderful look into the brain of Tim Burton and a very sweet story, even if it is full of strange people and monsters. My personal loss will probably end up leaving a much more emotional connection with the film that I'd otherwise have, but there is a lot to this movie that is absolutely wonderfully put together. It contains perfect performances, great black and white animation, and a story that's got something for everyone. If nothing else, I hope this becomes a regular Halloween favorite for youngsters who aren't quite ready for the real scary movies that paved the way for Frankenweenie to exist.

8/10

The Master: A Mesmerizing Drama

Writer/director Paul Thomas Anderson is considered about the cream of the crop of modern filmmakers. He's often referred to as The Next Stanley Kubrick even, which is, as far as I'm concerned, a silly statement. PT Anderson is one of the freshest, most talented voices in cinema, but he has certainly developed his own voice. He's not the next anyone, he's PT Anderson. As a cinematic master, he last graced cinemas with his magnum opus, There Will Be Blood five years ago. Now, he's back with a film that has a similar intensity not present in his earlier work. PT Anderson returns with The Master, and period drama shot on 65mm film that is every bit as captivating as its predecessor, if not quite as satisfying.

That's not how a film should be reviewed, though, is it? On so many sites, I see this film getting downgraded simply because it's not There Will Be Blood 2. The simple truth of the matter is The Master is a very, very different film from Blood. They share a few stylistic things in common, but in the end, here we have a much more intimate and smaller story about troubled people. It's not about huge character arcs or a complicated story; it's a glimpse into the lives of these flawed individuals.

Our protagonist is Freddy Quell (Joaquin Phoenix), a man returning from WWII with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder who is attempting to have a normal life, only that's not as easy as it seems. His mind is very messed up now, presumably a result of his devotion to the nation by serving in the war. Now, he cannot hold a job, has a major drinking problem, and has no direction in his life. One drunken night, he wanders aboard a yacht where he meets Lancaster Dodd (Philip Seamour Hoffman), the founder and head of a new religion known as The Cause. Dodd and Quell are opposites - a driven man who has devoted his life to leading others, and a seemingly hopeless drunk with no prospects or friends. The two become dependent off of each other, which leads to unexpected outcomes for the both of them.

It's best to leave the plot description vague because the plot itself is rather vague, not in an ambiguous sense, but rather because this is no more than a character study about complicated characters. What's perhaps the most fascinating decision behind the scenes here is how PT Anderson scaled back his filmmaking style quite a bit, moving the camera infrequently and avoiding the huge tracking shots he's known for. This is not to say that the cinematography was anything less than stunning, however. There is a strong style, but a much more subtle one than we've come to expect from the man. This subtlety also extends to the development of our two main characters.

From the script alone, these characters are developed to a point, without revealing their full complexities, which is where the absolutely flawless performances of Phoenix and Hoffman add considerable complexity to the characters. Anderson made an interesting choice; he let the performances create the complexity, and he just let his direction serve what was necessary to watch these two completely believable actors do what they needed to do. In a smaller role, it's also necessary to point out the amount of power Amy Adams brought to her role as Dodd's wife Mary. Unlike the other two, she has no scenes where she loses her calm or gets to be completely unhinged, but the subtleties of fantastic acting tell us quite a lot about who this woman is and why she's here.

Of course, if you've read any other reviews for this film, you're probably wondering why I'm not going off about how amazingly complex and hard to understand this film is. Honestly, I'm not sure if I'm dull but The Master doesn't come off like a terribly cryptic epic at all to me. There is symbolism and great thematic work, but none of it is terribly complicated. There are a few things that leave room for interpretation, but this is not a puzzling watch. One thing I've certainly taken away from it is how little respect Paul Thomas Anderson seems to have for religious institutions. Between this and his previous film, we see despicable men running religious groups to serve their own egotistical purposes, because they want to rule, spirituality in both cases is not even present. Here, we see this very blatantly, and even get the metaphor of a dog and his master through Freddy and Dodd as their relationship develops.

Paul Thomas Anderson has described this film as a love story between two men, but I really think it's just a tragic tale of a man who does not have the function of being normal who wants to fit in. We see the characters in The Cause partaking in their makeshift family because it makes them feel good to fit into something that's bigger than themselves. Characters see (or invent) meaning in the universe for a sense of belonging, but Freddy's mental state makes him stick out even from this basic opportunity. This is a tragic, intimate tale that's remarkably well put together and something that will no doubt improve with age. 

9/10

Sleepwalk With Me: Mike Birbiglia's Film Is Hilarious and Sincere

I can't recommend this little film enough; it's one of the best of the year and a truly great experience. Sleepwalk With Me is currently playing on limited screens in the US, so get to it if you have a chance. Unfortunately for this site, my official review has been published over at WhatCulture!, but thanks to the handy dandy links here on the internet, I can bring it right to you!

Click here for my 4.5 star review. 

Go see this movie.

Review: Odd Apocalypse by Dean Koontz

First Posted at BlogCritics.org

Four years after the last Odd Thomas adventure, Dean Koontz has written the fifth book in the series: Odd Apocalypse. When most hear the ominous name, they assume this is the final volume. After all, if "apocalypse" is in the name, the world has to end, right? Though this is certainly the craziest novel in the series so far, the apocalypse is more subtle than you'd think.

Odd Thomas is a strange fellow. He's now twenty-two years old, but his life is far from normal. Other than the fact that his legal name is, in fact, "Odd," he has a sixth sense. He can see the ghosts of the lingering dead. They don't talk, but they can communicate to him in other ways. This has guided Odd on a strange journey through the first four books of the series, and here it takes him to his darkest place yet.

In the midst of a much larger journey, Odd and his companion, a seven month pregnant young woman named Annamaria, make a stop at Roseland, a 1920s mansion. Roseland is the home to a mysterious billionaire and his even stranger servants. Right away, Odd is aware that things are not right in this place. A ghost of a murdered woman on horseback confirms his dark suspicions, and the mystery of Roseland unfolds to greater horrors than Odd had ever imagined.

As far as I'm concerned, Odd Thomas is the greatest character Dean Koontz has ever created. He's funny, humble, immensely likable, courageous, and just a joy to read about. Every time one of these novels comes out, I drop what I was doing and make a point to pick up the book immediately. I've read each one within a day or two because they all are completely compelling. Though a reader could technically jump into the story at any of the books, I very much advise you to start at the beginning. Each story serves its own purpose, but there is a larger arc of the character that is worth the extra time.

Whereas I found the previous book in the series (Odd Hours) a little unsatisfying by the ending, Odd Apocalypse proves to be Koontz's most creative book in years. It's really got everything a great book needs. The characters are complicated and interesting. The story is very unique and provides a great deal of suspense. The ending is open enough that you crave more, but aren't left on a cliffhanger. Seriously, buy this book.

Here, we see Odd in a more confused place than he has been previously. There are big things at work that he has not quite put his finger on, but we will surely learn more early next year when book six comes out. There's a lot to love about every Odd book, but this one ranks third in the series for me. I applaud Mr. Koontz for crafting this brilliant series that has stayed strong five books in.

So, what are you waiting for? Stop reading and buy this book!