Review: "Ghost Rider"

I'm a lifelong comic book geek. After years of horrible adaptations of comics for TV and movies, I was thrilled in the late 1990s when the technology finally caught up to allow Hollywood to make good big screen versions of my favorite comics. When it comes to the resulting glut of comic movies, I've seen them all, from the very good ("Batman Begins," the X-Men franchise) to the downright horrid ("The Hulk," "Elektra") and a whole bunch that fall somewhere in between.

For the most part, I've never really been drawn to the Spider-Mans and Supermans of the comic world. I've always preferred the darker characters, the ones that, at times, make you wonder which side they're really on -- guys like Wolverine, The Punisher and, of course, Ghost Rider.

I was actually quite interested to see how they would handle Ghost Rider in a live action movie, and after seeing the film, I now understand there are some things that are probably best left in the comic books. My first problem with the movie is in casting. Nicolas Cage is just a little too old to play Johnny Blaze. They dyed his hair black to make him look a little younger, but in truth, it just made him look like a guy in his mid-40s with his hair dyed black. I could live with Cage because at least I know he has respect for the comic, but I just didn't buy Wes Bentley's turn as Blackheart at all. I have a hard time picturing the son of Mephistopheles as the clean-cut John Stamos look-alike that Bentley played him as. He either needed to be a little more refined and sophisticated or a little more, well, black-hearted and evil. As it was, I kept expecting the young Olsen twins to show up to ask him a question. It's tough to build a comic book movie with a villain the audience is indifferent about.

Other roles were cast much better. I like Sam Elliott in most anything, and he does a great job as Carter Slade, as he usually does with Western themed characters. Peter Fonda's turn as Mephistopheles is also memorable.

Now, we get to the CGI, which for the action scenes is incredible. When riding or fighting, the Ghost Rider looks great. When speaking and trying to be menacing, the CGI fails completely. Here's why I say some things are better left to comics, or at least animation: A live action skull just can't be expressive in any way. No matter what the lines are, the skull looks the same. At times it's downright silly, especially when the witty repartee is like the first meeting of Ghost Rider and Blackheart. Ghost Rider: "You're going down." Blackheart: "I don't think so." Man, where's Spider-Man when you need him?

I wouldn't say that "Ghost Rider" is a horrible movie. There were some funny bits, the action sequences were very cool and I actually enjoyed it in a shut your brain down and watch kind of way. It is, however, definitely one of those middle-ground productions that will probably be enjoyed much more by fans of the comic than those unfamiliar with it.

Get "Ghost Rider" or the 2-disc version.

Review: "300"

Effing amazing.

Truthfully, I could leave my review at that and it would be entirely accurate. Of course, that wouldn't make for very good reading, would it?

There's always this little tinge of apprehension when I approach a Hollywood adaptation of something I know and enjoy, whether it be a favorite book, comic or graphic novel. Tinseltown isn't known for its faithfulness to the source material, and in many cases will just downright destroy a good thing. So even having seen the fantastic previews of "300" and having heard nothing but good things about it from people whose opinions I trust, I wondered if it could really match Frank Miller's graphic novel. Like "Sin City" before it, the answer is a resounding "yes."

Films that blend CGI and live action as liberally as "300" does have been a mixed bag in the past, but this movie gets it entirely right. The CGI creates a sense of unreality that makes the movie feel like Miller's comic book. The live action performances give it the grit that's required for the brutal battle scenes that make up the movie.

Critics, of course, had plenty of bad things to say about the movie, and I have to roll my eyes when I hear complaints about the movie putting style and action ahead of the story. I mean, the style and action are kind of the whole point here. Like Miller's graphic novel, this adaptation of "300" is a visceral display of the kind of unflinching machismo that most men, whether they're willing to admit it or not, wish they could achieve.

You don't see this kind of movie looking for a deep statement on the human condition. What you want in "300" is exactly what you get - some of the most epic and breathtaking battle scenes ever put on film, great one-liners and heads flying. You want something that speaks to that archaic, chest-beating, testosterone-fueled warrior that still lurks somewhere inside. You want a movie that makes you want to grab a sword and dive into the enemy ranks, even though most of us know realistically we'd get our soft butts kicked before the blade cleared its sheath. "300" delivers that and more.

Want a movie that dissects the whys of war and makes a statement on it? Pick up something else. Want to revel in the bloodlust of one of the best action films in recent memory? Grab some popcorn, sit back and enjoy.

Get "300" or the 2-disc special edition.

Review: "The Lies of Locke Lamora" by Scott Lynch

I strive to never judge a book by its cover, but sometimes a good cover helps. Take Scott Lynch's "The Lies of Locke Lamora" ($6.99, Bantam Spectra). It first landed on my desk in hardcover last year with an artsy deep purple and gray cover, and I thought it sounded interesting, but never got around to picking it up.

The paperback version, with a much more interesting cover, arrived a couple of weeks ago, and reminded me that the book had interested me originally. I picked it up this time, and was very sorry that I hadn't read it a year ago. It is, perhaps, one of the best debut novels that I've ever read.

Locke Lamora is an orphan in the city of Camorr who escapes slavery following a plague outbreak by sneaking into a group of children purchased by a gang leader known as the Thiefmaker. Locke turns out to be a little more than bargained for, and as a last resort, the Thiefmaker sells him to Father Chains, the supposedly eyeless priest of Perelandro.

Under Chains' tutelage, Locke grows up to be the leader of his own gang of thieves, quietly and happily breaking the doctrine known as the Secret Peace between the thieves and the nobility and taking the upper class of Camorr for thousands. But Locke's happy existence is about to be turned upside down.

Part "Oliver Twist," part swashbuckling fantasy and part caper, the first half of this book is amazing fun. The roguish Locke and his band of merry men (yes, there's some Robin Hood in there as well) are charming to spend time with and will amaze with their ability to pull off complex heists. Then, around the midpoint of the book, Lynch delivers a hard punch in the gut, and the book becomes much darker and much more personal. The final 300 pages are almost like a different book than the first 400, and both are powerful stories in different ways.

Lynch also takes chances in the delivery of the story, relying on trips to the past to flesh out the action in the present. That could be a fatal flaw, but the author handles it deftly, making the flashbacks as immediate as the current action and always relevant to what's going on. They serve the dual purpose of offering insight on Locke's past as well as clues to his current actions.

Another impressive point of this book is the world that Lynch has created. While it would have worked in the standard medieval fantasy milieu, Lynch has built a well-developed world for Locke Lamora that is part Venice, part alien landscape and holds plenty of mysteries to be explored.

And, if you still need one more reason to read this book now, consider one of the best gang names ever - the Gentleman Bastards.

Review: "Guitar Hero Encore: Rocks the '80s"

With the exception of the "Madden" football series, I rarely find a video game that comes anywhere near an addiction. (I'm in the 20th or so season of my Saints franchise in Madden '05, the most recent version I own.) Usually I get a game, play it a good bit the first week or two I have it and either finish it or hit a dead end. Then it goes on the shelf, and I may pull it out occasionally and give it another shot.

When I received "Guitar Hero II" as a Christmas gift, I'll admit, I got addicted. I lost hours of my life to this game. For those who are unfamiliar, the game comes with a plastic Gibson SG with five fretting buttons, a picking button and a whammy bar. You follow along with the songs in the game by hitting the appropriate fret buttons and the picking button. The whammy is used to pick up power-ups. The most surprising thing to me, being as I could play many of the songs in the game on my real guitar, was that, often, the songs are tougher to play on the game than in real life.

So, when "Guitar Hero Encore: Rocks the '80s" was announced, I had to get it as soon as possible. After all, I love the game, and I'm a child of the '80s. The song list covers most of the bases of the 1980s. There's the new wave sound with Oingo Boingo and Flock of Seagulls, the pop of The Go-Gos and Scandal, arena rockers such as Billy Squier and The Police and metal masters like Iron Maiden and Judas Priest. There are even a few off the wall choices, such as the fictional band Limozeen. (Then again, Spinal Tap and Dethklok, the band from Cartoon Network's "Metalocalypse," were featured in GHII).

The first thing you should know is that this isn't really a new game. With "Guitar Hero III" due out for the next gen consoles in October, this is more like a supplement to "Guitar Hero II" to hold fans over. The story arc of the game is the same as GHII, there aren't any new characters or twists, and the guitars you win by mastering the different levels are the same as GHII. I also miss the ability to buy more songs that you have in the last installment and there are fewer characters and costumes, but none of those are fatal flaws.

If there's one thing that's most disappointing about "Rocks the '80s," it's the brevity of the game. There are only 30 songs here. I breezed through the easy and medium levels in two nights. True, there were only 40 songs in GHII, but there were many more available to purchase with the points you earn through performances.
Though a few songs, like Twisted Sister's "I Wanna Rock" and Judas Priest's "Electric Eye," are originals, most of the songs, as in the first two games, are done by a cover band. That means a few of them are really bad. The vocals on this version of Dio's "Holy Diver" are cringeworthy, though to be fair, it's a bit tough to compete with Ronnie James Dio in the vocal department. Most of them are at least passable, and one or two (usually songs I didn't really like to begin with) I actually like a little better.

So, it sounds like I didn't like the game, which isn't true at all. It was just a little disappointing after the great GHII. It is what it is, an add-on to the game to give fans 30 new songs to play to hold them over until GHIII arrives. As far as gameplay goes, it's just as much fun as its predecessors and if you enjoyed them, you'll enjoy this installment. Here's hoping for a few more bells and whistles in October.

Get "Guitar Hero Encore."

Get "Guitar Hero II" with guitar for PS2.

Get "Guitar Hero II" with guitar for Xbox 360.

Random rant: My child will never act like that

The initial purpose of this blog was for me to rant about things that hacked me off. But, for a variety of reasons, I decided a couple of months ago to revamp it and take it in a different direction. But some fans of the blog (and by fans, I mean my wife) missed the rants, so maybe I’ll still offer up an occasional one.

This morning, I was reading one of my favorite blogs, Behind the Counter. Having had to deal with the public in my job basically since I was 16-years-old, I often find the posts there hilarious. I’ve dealt with a lot of those people over and over again and most of the time I can commiserate.

Occasionally, though, I have to laugh a little at the author, particularly in the views on “howler monkeys.” (Yeah, I’ve called them that myself on occasion, even my own.) The most recent post talked about some kids riding in the buggy eating Goldfish crackers out of a Ziploc bag. The author observed that provisions were not necessary for a trip to Wal-Mart, to which I could only respond, you obviously have never been around a 2-year-old. I don’t know how old the kids in question were, but I can assure you that a few Goldfish crumbs are nothing compared to what happens when said 2-year-old decides it's time for a cracker, and you don’t have one.

I know there are a few of you reading this making some snide comment about the parenting abilities of someone who can’t keep a 2-year-old from screaming his head off, and again, I say, you’ve obviously never been around a 2-year-old. You see, a 2-year-old doesn’t understand inconvenience. A 2-year-old doesn’t understand later. A 2-year-old understands that he’s hungry, and you’re not doing anything about it, so the only possible solution is to say it louder and try to get it through mommy or daddy’s thick skull that he’s hungry — RIGHT NOW. Reasoning with a 2-year-old is useless because he doesn’t understand reason.

There are two really silly things that all young non-parents say — and they’ll say them over and over again. No. 1 is, I’ll never have kids. No. 2 is, my kids will never act like that. The fact is, in most cases, you will and they will.

Now I’m not saying that there isn’t bad parenting out there. I see it everyday. I was recently in a toy store where my son was playing with a wooden Thomas display set. Another child about my son’s age wandered over and started playing. The child’s mother just continued shopping and left her 2- or 3-year-old son with us. She’d never seen me before and had no way to know whether or not the kid that was with me was actually my child and not some kid I was trying to abduct. She just saw an opportunity for a free babysitter.

Not wanting to leave the kid where someone could abduct him, my son and I continued to play with him for another 20 minutes or so until his mother found her way back to where we were, still very unconcerned about the small child she’d left with a complete stranger. At that point, I decided it was time for us to leave and cajoled my son into visiting another part of the store (which is no easy task where Thomas is involved.) The poor kid wanted to go with us, and his mother had to physically restrain him. I felt sorry for him.

Then, of course, I made a mistake. One of those “my child will never act like that” mistakes. You see, we had gone to the store to get my son a new Thomas toy. I’d promised it to him. We’d had a bad experience in Wal-Mart the night before where I had promised my son a Thomas video with a toy included, and when we got to the counter, they wouldn’t sell it to us because of the recent recall (even though I’ve been keeping up with the recall for obvious reasons and knew that product wasn’t part of it.) The hurt in his eyes when she took the video that he’d been clutching to his chest for 30 minutes and put it behind the counter made me furious (if it’s recalled, it shouldn’t be on the shelves), and it got worse as we walked out with my child looking about as pitiful as I’ve ever seen him, searching through all the bags and asking, “Where’s Thomas video, daddy? Where’s Thomas video, daddy?” I was not happy, so we left quickly before I could land a starring role on Behind the Counter.

At any rate, we now had to go back to the Thomas section to get his toy. As soon as we rounded the corner, he darted right back to the play table. I let him play for a few more minutes and started trying to convince him to choose a toy. He was more interested in the broken toys out on the display. Problem coming.

I picked various toys from the shelf, showing them to him, thinking he’d latch on to one and come peacefully, because we have to go. No such luck. He shoves the toys back at me, turns back to the table and says, “play trains more.” Back to exhibit A. The 2-year-old doesn’t understand that he’s going to get a train to take home. He understands that he’s having fun playing with the broken down trains in the store display, and when daddy tries to take him away from those, the obvious solution is to tell daddy he wants to play trains louder until it gets through daddy’s thick skull that he wants to play trains. Of course, sometimes as a parent, you can’t give in. So, instead of getting a toy, I walked briskly out of the store with said 2-year-old kicking and screaming and a whole bunch of people looking at me thinking, “My child will never act like that.”

Yes, he will.

(For another exploration of the "My child will never act like that" phenomenon, check out the post titled "The Pot and the Kettle" at Does This Mean I'm a Grown-up?, which also played a part in inspiring this rant.)

Review: "Hannibal Rising"

One thing that Thomas Harris seems to have forgotten in his last two novels and screenplays about cannibalistic killer Hannibal Lecter is what made Lecter such a fascinating character in the first place - his personality and the performance of Anthony Hopkins.

It's much more chilling to hear the smooth, smiling Lecter talk matter-of-factly about eating someone's liver with some fava beans and a nice Chianti than to actually watch him do it.

That was the problem with "Hannibal" and also with "Hannibal Rising," which tells the tale of the young Lecter and how he came to be Hannibal the cannibal.

It begins in Lithuania during World War II, when Hannibal is a small child. The Nazis and the Russian army clash on his family's land, resulting in the death of his parents and leaving Hannibal to fend for himself and his younger sister. When a band of rogue locals who have been denied entry to the SS come calling at the house where Lecter and his sister are hiding, things get worse - much worse.

We're then introduced to the teenage Hannibal, who escapes from the orphanage that used to be his family's home, sneaks across the Soviet border and winds up with an aunt by marriage who lives in Paris. Lecter starts a new life and begins medical school, but he hasn't forgotten the horrors of the war, seeing the men who tormented him in his dreams every night.

"Hannibal Rising" is a far superior movie to "Hannibal," but it still doesn't stack up to either "Red Dragon" or "Silence of the Lambs." This is a brutal vision of the young Lecter, far from the suave mastermind of his later years, though he does occasionally show the tendency toward the killer he'll later become (the last scene in the film, in which the violence isn't shown, is perhaps the most Lecter-ish moment.)

Gaspard Ulliel steps into some big shoes taking on the role of Lecter, and handles it well. While he portrays a younger, more brash and less scheming Lecter, we do see him develop the cold charm and show flashes of Hopkins' famous portrayal. Ultimately, though, he's stuck in what is more or less a gory revenge tale. While it shows us Lecter's origins, it offers little insight into the character once he has that revenge. To me, the more interesting tale may be the transformation from the angry young man bent on revenge to the cold habitual killer of "Red Dragon" and "Silence of the Lambs," and it might offer more of those things which make "Silence of the Lambs" a creepier film.

"Hannibal Rising" is an enjoyable enough revenge tale, but in a couple of years when I'm flipping channels and see it on TV, I'm not likely to stop and continue watching the way I will when I see "Silence of the Lambs."

Get the "Hannibal Rising" DVD.

Get the novel.

Review: "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows," by J.K. Rowling

Note: This review is as spoiler-free as I could possibly make it, but if you don't want any clue whatsoever about Harry's fate, don't read the last paragraph.

I opened my copy of J.K. Rowling's "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows" feeling equal amounts of anticipation and regret. Here, finally, was the conclusion of the seven-book cycle (conclusion being something that most fantasy series these days never seem to reach), the answers to all the questions, the final showdown between Harry and Voldemort. On the other hand, I also knew it was the end of Harry's story.

The book starts with a bang. More than any other book in the series, the action begins immediately and never lets up. By page 50, there's carnage in what becomes a dark and bloody chapter of the saga. It almost had to be that way. Though we've never truly seen Voldemort and the Death Eaters in action, we knew they would be vicious, blackhearted and evil. They live up to their reputation here.

As we learned in "The Half-Blood Prince," Harry is not going back to Hogwarts for the new year. He's about to turn 17, legally able to use magic outside school grounds, and he's going to collect Voldemort's horcruxes, the pieces of his soul that he's split up and hidden, and destroy them. Hermione and Ron, of course, are going with him, despite his protests. The downside of turning 17 is that the spell protecting Harry will fail and Voldemort will be able to find him, so the Order of the Phoenix has to spirit him away from the Dursley's home and hide him in a safe house, and that's where things start to go wrong.

While the Order of the Phoenix tries to protect Harry, Voldemort and the Death Eaters are maneuvering to take over the Ministry of Magic, implement their anti-Muggle policies and, of course, declare Harry an outlaw. Harry and his friends go on the run on a wild magical journey that leads them to new places and forces them to take a hard look at themselves and those that are closest to them.

As promised by Rowling, people die and people change - or at least our perception of those people does. Actions both heroic and not-so-heroic come from unexpected sources, and by the end of the book nearly every character has undergone some sort of transformation.

I quibble with one point late in the book, which I won't reveal here so as not to spoil it for those who haven't finished yet, but I was left with mixed feelings. While a powerful scene, ultimately, I felt that Rowling may have cheated a bit. But it wasn't enough to ruin the book for me.

SPOILER ALERT: There are clues to Harry's fate in the next paragraph. If you don't want to know, don't read it. You've been warned.

"The Deathly Hallows" is a fitting ending for the wizard who is no longer a boy in this book. And though fans around the world will protest, wanting to read more about Harry, it should be an ending. Like all true heroes, Harry has played his part in the grand story and deserves some peace. No future story could match up to the one told in these seven books, and would only cheapen what Rowling has accomplished with this story.

Read my thoughts on the ending of Harry Potter.

Random thoughts on the end of Harry Potter

It's been a long, fun ride since that day, eight years or so ago, when I first picked up "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone." The religious fanatics were raving about how it would ruin society and teach our children witchcraft, and I figured that anything that ticked them off that much couldn't be all bad. That was enough to make me pick it up, but, of course, it took much more to make me follow it through seven books.

I liked the first two books because they were fun. They contained a sense of wonder that I hadn't encountered in books in a while. I reveled in Rowling's world and its inhabitants. Then, with "Prisoner of Azkaban," something else began to happen. Instead of just being fun and fascinating, the books began to transform into a more serious story. Getting progressively darker, and with the exception of "Goblet of Fire" which I still believe is the weakest link in the series, progressively better. It transformed from a children's tale into a true fantasy epic.

I know there are "serious fantasy fans" out there rolling their eyes at that statement. I know because I've talked to them. Snobbish types who look down their nose and sniff at Harry Potter because it was, at least initially, written for children and because it was a commercial success. (Never mind that most of the literary world looks down their noses and sniffs at those same people for reading fantasy and anything that bolsters the reputation and success of the genre should be hailed as a good thing.)

I even had a guy go through the trouble of tracking me down to insult me after a quote from one of my reviews appeared on the cover of a Jim Butcher book referencing Harry Potter. This truly charming individual informed me that comparing Harry Potter to any book for adults was an insult to the author of the adult book. As a writer myself, I'll take a piece of that insult. I'm sure Butcher would, too.

He went on to offer a long list of books that I should read to "educate" myself on fantasy before writing any more reviews about a genre I know nothing about. As a 20-plus year reader of fantasy, I'd read most of the books on the list, and I'd still put the seven Potter books right there with most of them.

Many people have discussed in recent weeks how Harry Potter will be seen by future generations and whether or not it will endure. I believe that it will. The teenagers who are obsessed with Harry Potter now will want their future children to experience it, too, just as I can't wait for the day my son is ready to take a stroll through Middle-earth or Narnia, the places I explored as a kid - and, yes, now I'll add Hogwarts to that list.

More importantly, I hope that people will always seek out a good story, and putting aside the massive commercial success and hype around the books, that's what Rowling has delivered - a good story that shows us both the best and the worst of human nature, the triumph of spirit and the pangs of loss. It's with those mingled feelings that millions of readers finished the final page and closed the cover of "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows," the loss at knowing this could be the last time they walk the halls of Hogwarts, but the triumph and satisfaction of having enjoyed one of the best fantasy stories of our time.

Review: "Fragile Things" by Neil Gaiman

It's no surprise that a guy who made his name in the comics world would excel in the short form, and for the most part, his latest short story collection, "Fragile Things" ($26.95, William Morrow), will not disappoint.

Through the course of the stories, Gaiman weaves fairy tale, myth, legend and tributes to writers he idolizes into stories that range from charming to strange to creepy.

The best story here is a tip of the hat to Ray Bradbury, "October in the Chair," which features personifications of the seasons of the month swapping stories at a gathering. Without giving anything away, I'll just say that the ending of the story is incredibly reminiscent of Bradbury and his stories that made readers think and use their imaginations. It wouldn't have been out of place in Bradbury's "The October Country."

Other influences come through on "A Study in Emerald," which reads like a blend of Arthur Conan Doyle, Edgar Allan Poe and H.P. Lovecraft, and the observant reader will note references to other writers and works sprinkled liberally throughout the book.

The best stories in "Fragile Things," as with much of Gaiman's work, are those that lean more toward the fantastic and surreal. The story in "October in the Chair," for example is much more disturbing than the stab he takes at a more grisly brand of horror in "Feeders and Eaters."

Of great interest to fans will be the return of Shadow from "American Gods" in the novella "The Monarch of the Glens," which offers a different take on "Beowulf" and also hints that perhaps there's more in store for Shadow in the future.

Gaiman also sprinkles bits of poetry here and there throughout the book, which for the most part, you can skip. A poet he's not, but there is a certain poetry in his stories when they're at their best. Much like his idol Bradbury, Gaiman is at his best when he's at his strangest. The tales that make you think, the stories that open themselves to your own interpretation are the ones you'll remember.

Review: "Happy Feet"

I have a two-year-old that loves penguins, so if there's an animated movie with penguins, we're probably seeing it at some point. I happen to like animated movies myself, so I'm not that opposed. Except when we run into one like this.

Mumble, voiced by Elijah Wood, is an emperor penguin that can't sing - the only one, apparently. But he can dance. His lack of vocal ability makes him an outcast, and he's shunned because of his love of dancing. The elder penguins even blame the lack of fish on Mumble's dancing. Of course, we know that's actually caused by overfishing by humans, and of course, Mumble is the one that will discover that and set things right because that's how these kinds of movies work.

The problem is, the environmental message in the second half of the movie falls flat because the filmmakers fail to make me care about their animated penguins in the first half of the movie. There are pretty pictures. There are some funny gags and some fun moments during the singing, but I'm just not invested.

OK, so it's a cartoon, and adults are not really supposed to have an emotional investment, but I should at least care about what happens to Mumble, and I don't.

My son liked the singing and dancing penguins, and an action sequence where they're chased by a leopard seal, but even he lost interest when Mumble's out on his own trying to save the world. That whole storyline just seems to drag and drag the movie down with it. While I understand and applaud the filmmakers trying to make an environmental statement, they might have been better served to deliver the fluffy kids' movie about being yourself that "Happy Feet" started as.

Get "Happy Feet."

Review: "Pan's Labyrinth"

When you're watching a foreign movie, there's an easy way to tell if it's really good. At some point during the movie, you forget that it's subtitled. That happened to me while watching "Pan's Labyrinth" over the weekend. At the risk of sounding like the redneck I am, I'll admit that I hate subtitles. But somewhere during the final scenes, I suddenly realized again that the movie had them. I had been completely absorbed in the world presented by Guillermo del Toro.

The movie revolves around a young girl named Ofelia who travels to Spain in 1944 with her pregnant mother, who is in a seemingly unhappy marriage to Capt. Vidal, a vicious and merciless officer in the Spanish Army. Shortly after her arrival, she begins to see fairies who eventually lead her to a faun who tells her she's the daughter of the king of the underworld. The faun assigns her tasks that must be completed before she can take her rightful place. While trying to complete those tasks, she must also deal with her mother's worsening condition and the war between her stepfather's men and the rebels in the mountains.

At heart the movie is a fairy tale, but it's definitely not for kids. There is, of course, a lot of violence and some very dark themes that run through the movie, though, to me, the violence was not as graphic as some reviews have suggested.

When Ofelia is in the fairy worlds, the movie is absolutely beautiful. The creatures she encounters during her challenges are both whimsical and sinister at the same time. The fantasy land sequences play almost like some warped and dangerous version of "Alice in Wonderland." It's a world that I'd like to spend more time in, and if I have one complaint about the movie, it would be that I would have liked to explore the fantasy side of the film more. Some of those scenes, like the one in the hall of the Pale Man, went by far too quickly for me and left me wanting to go back.

I don't mean to say that the "real world" part of the movie was at all weak. It was equally absorbing story-wise and probably could have stood on its own without the supernatural elements. But I still longed for the visual treats and wonder of the fantasy world.

"Pan's Labyrinth" is an impressive achievement for del Toro, so much so that "The Devil's Backbone" has just moved to the top of my "to see" list.

Get "Pan's Labyrinth."

Get the two disc version.

Review: "Greywalker" by Kat Richardson

Seattle private investigator Harper Blaine is having a rough time in Kat Richardson's debut "Greywalker" ($14, Roc).

She was finishing what she expected to be a routine case by confronting the perpetrator of a petty fraud. Things go awry when the suspect goes crazy and beats her to death. For two minutes, Harper is officially dead before being revived by paramedics, and then things get weird. Her experience has given her the strange abilities of a greywalker, someone who is able to see ghosts and even cross over into their world.

Shortly after being released from the hospital, she's back on the job working two cases. One, finding the son of a rich socialite who has disappeared from college. The other, finding a parlor organ for a mysterious client. Both prove to be much more than Harper could have ever planned for.

I've become quite the fan of these supernatural detective stories over the past few years. The best ones get the action started early and keep it fun. That's perhaps the only problem with Richardson's debut. A lot of time is spent trying to explain Harper's abilities and showing her learning to use them, and in the early going it gets bogged down a little in the technicalities. Most folks who are going to pick up this book will be willing to accept her abilities and learn as they go along instead of having them explained.

About halfway through the book, when Harper finds her missing person, business picks up and from there the book moves at a much faster clip and heads in a direction that fans will be much more familiar with.

Richardson's story is well done and enjoyable, though I have to admit that I had a bit more trouble identifying with Harper than similar characters in other authors' work. I do like the fact that Richardson's heroine doesn't have to jump in bed with every supernatural character that walks through the door, as often happens in these tales.

"Greywalker" is an intriguing debut, and I'll be very interested to see what Richardson does with the next installment now that the groundwork is done.

Review: "Tenacious D in the Pick of Destiny"

I stumbled across Tenacious D years ago, after stumbling into the house late one night and flipping on HBO. I remember laughing my ass off, thinking "it's a shame these guys will never go anywhere." I guess it shows how much I know.

So now that Jack Black is in demand, it's nice to see that he hasn't forgotten the people who were watching him on HBO at two in the morning all those years ago. He and Kyle Gass released a record a few years back under the Tenacious D moniker, and now comes the movie.

The movie covers the fictional beginnings of the band and a quest to find an ancient pick made out of the devil's tooth that has supposedly made many of the world's greatest guitarists who they are. If they get the pick, they're almost assured of greatness.

Of course, the plot really doesn't matter. It's Jack Black's manic energy and over-the-top personality that makes the movie. He's one of the few actors in Hollywood that can be consistently entertaining, even in a lousy movie (which this one isn't.) Gass has always been the straight, quiet guy of the duo, but we get to see a little more of him in the early going, and he has some moments as a cocky, fake rock god.

There are also some nice cameos sprinkled throughout the show, with Meat Loaf starring as Jack's father and Ronnie James Dio jumping out of a poster on his door to sing a song that urges him to follow his dreams. Tim Robbins shows up as a creepy, bumbling villain who had his leg ruined while trying to steal the pick, and of course, Dave Grohl reprises the role of Satan.

The movie is as much a musical as a film, and it works on both levels. No, it's not great cinema, but did you expect it to be? I laughed often, and I enjoyed the corny songs, and that's really all I wanted. Long live the D.

Get "Tenacious D in the Pick of Destiny."

Review: "All Together Dead" by Charlaine Harris

Charlaine Harris' Southern Vampire series continues down a darker road in the latest installment, "All Together Dead" ($24.95, Ace).

For those unfamiliar with the series, the main character Sookie Stackhouse is a no-nonsense northern Louisiana girl who also happens to be a telepath. She's caught the attention of the vampires, who have recently gone public about their existence, and they continue to call on her services. This time, she's been hired by Sophie-Anne Leclerq, the vampire queen of Louisiana, to travel to what amounts to a vampire convention in a Chicago suburb so that she can scan the minds of other humans and give the queen an edge.

Sophie-Anne, still reeling from the blow of Hurricane Katrina, is scheduled to face trial in the death of her husband, the king of Arkansas. When they arrive at the pyramid-themed vampire hotel, though, vamps begin dropping like flies all around them, and Sophie finds herself caught up in a series of vampiric power plays. Then, of course, there's the ever-present threat of the Fellowship of the Sun, a group of radical humans who want to destroy the vamps.

Harris' series began as a fun romp through a world filled with vampires and good ole boys. With each installment, though, it's gotten slightly darker. While there's still plenty of fun and humor in the early-going here, the final third of the book becomes pretty disturbing. The post-Katrina pall hanging over the book and the climactic scenes which are disturbingly familiar in the age of terrorism add to the bleak ending which will leave readers unsure whether they still like many of the characters, Sookie included, as much as they did before.

While fans may miss the fun, flippant side of the series a little, "All Together Dead" offers a bigger punch in the gut and asks some tougher questions of us than previous installments. It's a more grown-up offering with a less rosy outlook on humanity.

Read my review of Charlaine Harris' "Definitely Dead."

Review: "Eragon"

The advances in fantasy movies in recent years have been amazing. I remember sitting through a lot of truly awful fantasy films over the years, longing to find one like Peter Jackson's adaptations of "The Lord of the Rings" or some of the "Harry Potter" adaptations. The technology now has gotten so good that even a mediocre fantasy film can be impressive.

It's unusual for me to not have read a book before I see the movie, but for some reason, I just never got around to picking up "Eragon." I had a vague notion of the plot, but didn't really know what I was getting. The film starts well enough. Some might fault it for the typical "farmboy with hidden greatness" plot, but it's a staple of the fantasy genre and still very viable when done correctly.

Visually, the movie is very good, even if it borrows more than a few camera shots and digital sets from "The Lord of the Rings." The dragon Saphira looks great both on the ground and in flight, and the climactic aerial battle between Eragon and Saphira and the Shade Durza and his nightmare creation is stunning.

The cast also does a good job with what they have to work with. Ed Speleers is appropriately innocent and brash as Eragon, John Malkovich seems to be having fun as the evil King Galbatorix and Jeremy Irons brings some gravity to Eragon's mentor Brom. The problem they have is that toward the end of the movie, the dialogue devolves into a series of clichés. Combined with the digital backdrops and camera shots that should have Jackson on the phone with his lawyers, it really took me out of the flow of the movie because I'd laugh a little every time I saw one.

"Eragon" isn't a bad movie, but it isn't a great one, either. It has a lot of nice eye candy, which distracts from a mediocre script. A common complaint I see from fans of Christopher Paolini's books is that the script takes much of the depth of the story away. I can't say either way since I haven't read the book, but I can say the movie certainly doesn't compel me to run out and get a copy of the book.

"Eragon" is a fun way to pass an hour and a half, but when the credits roll, it's not one of those recent fantasy movies that leave you thinking, "wow, I can't wait to see that again."

Get "Eragon."

Get the Special Edition.

Review: "The Children of Hurin" by J.R.R. Tolkien

I always approach posthumous works with more than a little skepticism, but there are just times when I can't resist checking them out. One such time is when it's a "new" work from J.R.R. Tolkien. "The Children of Hurin" ($26, Houghton-Mifflin) was compiled from a variety of Tolkien sources and stories by his son Christopher, and while it's not "The Hobbit" or "The Lord of the Rings," it's still an entertaining tale.

The warrior lord Hurin stands with the elves against the dark lord Morgoth and is taken captive, cursed to watch the doom of his children, Turin and Nienor, as they battle the advancing forces of Morgoth that seek to plunge the world into darkness.

Don't expect "The Hobbit" or "The Lord of the Rings" from this book. While those tales meandered at a leisurely stroll taking detours and admiring the scenery, this one moves at breakneck pace from action to action. This is more like Tolkien's attempt at a Shakespearean tragedy.

There are times when "The Children of Hurin" seems no more than an outline of a story that Tolkien had been planning and reads as a historical report of the action rather than a story. There are moments of great detail, such as Turin's battle with the dragon Glaurung, and other times where events happen so quickly that they don't have the full impact that they should.

Some have suggested that "The Children of Hurin" is an attempt by Christopher Tolkien to cash in on his father's legacy, and reading the book, I don't believe that. I do think it was an honest attempt to give fans a longed-for tale equal to his father's best. Unfortunately, it falls a bit short.

That said, the book is certainly worth reading for Tolkien fans. The valiant, yet troubled Turin is an interesting character with the potential to have been one of Tolkien's greatest with some development. The story should also please fans who would like to know more about the history of Middle-earth, but find wading through "The Silmarillion" tough going. And, of course, there are the gorgeous illustrations by Alan Lee. It's a good book, but ultimately it is what it is - an unfinished tale.

Get "The Children of Hurin."

Get the Deluxe Edition.

Review: "The Departed"

Though "Goodfellas" is one of my favorite movies, I've been underwhelmed by most of Martin Scorsese's more recent movies. That's why I was pleased to see him return to the kind of gritty, and yes occasionally gory, movies that have produced some of his best work.

"The Departed" features Matt Damon and Leonardo DiCaprio as double-agent police officers playing against each other. DiCaprio tries to take down Irish crime boss Frank Costello (Jack Nicholson) as an undercover member of his crew, while Damon is actually working for Costello and feeding him information as the officer officially assigned to take him down. Costello has his own secrets, but those I won't reveal.

Initially, the film is a bit confusing simply because DiCaprio and Damon are so similar, and I found myself playing a game of which is which (perhaps fans of the two won't have that problem). After I got it all sorted out, though, the movie became an enjoyable game of cat and mouse with some good performances among the all-star cast.

While the movie focuses on Damon and DiCaprio, the real star is Nicholson. He plays Costello flamboyantly over the top, and it's great fun watching him chew up the scenery. It's perhaps his most entertaining role since "The Shining." Even though I'm not a fan, I also enjoyed seeing Alec Baldwin ham it up as Damon's somewhat bumbling boss.

The film is apparently an adaptation of the Hong Kong movie "Infernal Affairs." Having never seen it, I can't make the comparison. All I can say is that this one feels like a Scorsese piece from top to bottom.

Ultimately, "The Departed" is what Scorsese does best. It's at times hilariously funny and at times brutally violent. Much like real life, the good guys don't always win, and the things that happen don't have to "make sense." It's his best film, at least since "Casino" and possibly since "Goodfellas."

Get "The Departed."

Get "The Departed" special edition.

Review: "The Blood Knight" by Greg Keyes

Epic fantasy can be a tricky thing. Fans of the genre expect complex stories with tangled subplots, but sometimes they can get too tangled. Just ask Robert Jordan, whose once-promising Wheel of Time series grew so many heads that it stalled somewhere around book six and has only barely inched forward in the last four or five volumes.

With "The Blood Knight" (Del Rey), the third of four installments of his Kingdom of Thorn and Bone series, Greg Keyes has managed to weave his subplots seamlessly and avoid the pitfalls that so many other authors have fallen into.

In this book, Anne Dare, the exiled princess and rightful heir to the throne of Crotheny, has returned to try to muster support and remove her usurper uncle Robert from the throne. While that battle rages, there's a bigger battle being fought in the world as a whole. The legendary Briar King walks the earth again, some say to reclaim it from man, and with him comes a host of creatures thought to be children's tales and myths. Just whose side they're on is open to debate.

The head-hopping style that Keyes adopts in his storylines will immediately remind readers of George R. R. Martin's recent works, but Keyes manages to stick rigidly with his tale with few wasted words. Action and conflict rule every line of the book with little time for the overlong descriptive passages and asides that often crop up in the genre. Keyes gives his readers what they need to know, when they need to know it, and the result is a fast-paced sprint to the finish in a genre that often prefers meandering strolls. It's a refreshing approach that keeps you wondering what's around the next corner.

Keyes' characters are likeable and easy to connect with. And just when you think he's falling into the conventions of the genre, he surprises you with a deft twist.
"The Blood Knight" should satisfy the most hardcore epic fantasy purists as well as the occasional reader of the genre. A lot of the other writers working in the genre could take a few lessons from Keyes.

Read reviews of Keyes' previous books.

Review: "Fall of Knight" by Peter David

Arthur Penn, former President of the United States, plans to live the rest of his life peacefully sailing the world on his yacht with his wife Gwen in Peter David's latest, "Fall of Knight" (Ace). The only problem is the former first lady was shot by a terrorist and medical experts from all over the world said she would never come out of a coma.

When a satellite photo of Arthur and Gwen apparently living happily ever after shows up on the news, people want answers. Perhaps telling the truth - that Arthur is, in fact, Arthur Pendragon, king of Camelot, and he healed his wife with the Holy Grail, which he won in a battle against Sumerian legend Gilgamesh with the aid of a Moorish Knight of the Round Table named Percival and a Noah-like sailor named Ziusura - was a bad idea.

Proving the claim by using the Grail to treat a fallen journalist covering the story, turns out to be an even worse idea as, suddenly, Arthur finds himself besieged by people needing help and even as the focus of a new religion.

But the worst is yet to come when Merlin discovers that the Grail's companion piece, the Spear of Destiny, is also back in play, and the combination of the two could have disastrous results. Unfortunately, before he can warn Arthur, he's imprisoned by Nimue, the Lady of the Lake.

The third book in David's satirical modern-day Arthur trilogy provides as many chuckles as the first two, and just as much food for thought, as well. While telling a fun adventure story, he also skewers several aspects of modern life from politics to religion to frivolous lawsuits.

Those prone to being offended may want to give the book a pass. The story deals with two legendary items closely associated to Christ - the cup he drank from at the last supper and the spear that pierced his side on the cross - and some of the fictional revelations in the book are a bit irreverent. It is, after all, a comic fantasy. But at the end of the day, the story serves more as an affirmation of faith.

Even more interesting to me, a long-time devotee of the Arthurian legends, is the story that serves as the backdrop for "Fall of Knight." Without giving anything away, I'll just say that it's a tale of Merlin and the origin of Excalibur that rivals any other that I've read.

The trilogy, which also includes the books "Knight Life" and "One Knight Only," is a fun update on the Arthurian legends. I'd definitely recommend it for Arthur buffs with a sense of humor.

Read my reviews of past Peter David books.

Get "Fall of Knight."

Review: "Wizards," edited by Gardner Dozois and Jack Dann

"Wizards" (Berkley, $25) bills itself as a collection of stories by "masters of modern fantasy," and it lives up to that billing.

Almost every author contributing to the book will be well-known to fans of fantasy fiction, ranging from masters like Neil Gaiman and Orson Scott Card to relative newcomers like Eoin Colfer.

Wizards, of course, are a staple of the fantasy world, and almost every different kind of magician imaginable is featured in this collection from the all-powerful to the mere illusionist.

There are warm-hearted and whimsical stories like Neil Gaiman's "The Witch's Headstone," which finds a young resident of a graveyard who can speak with the spirits attempting to buy a headstone for an accused witch buried anonymously, or Colfer's offering, "A Fowl Tale," about a talking dove who backs himself into a corner while trying to spin a tale for his supper. Even the normally dark Tanith Lee takes a light approach on "Zinder," about an abused and mentally impaired man who soars the night skies making things right.

Darker tales do appear. Mary Rosenblum's creative "Color Vision" features a wizard hunting young people with the talent to gain their power. The wizard in Elizabeth Hand's "Winter's Wife" uses her magic to avenge a greedy man's act against the natural beauty of her new home. Peter Beagle's "Barrens Dance" features one of the few truly evil wizards in the collection, a man intent on winning the love of a woman he can't have, through any means he can. But even these stories usually end well, if not always entirely happily.

There are tales that play on legends, such as Garth Nix's "Holly and Iron," drawing on a number of different European tales, including King Arthur. Jane Yolen' s "Slipping Sideways Through Eternity" even places the prophet Elijah in the position of wizard.

Perhaps the strangest story (and title) is Andy Duncan's "A Diorama of the Infernal Regions, or the Devil's Ninth Question" which finds a young girl jumping into a diorama and finding herself in a house where she'll face the devil himself.

There are a few forgettable stories in the mix, but very few. For the most part, this is a collection of writers doing what they do best. The stories are entertaining and offer a wide variety of styles and wizards to suit most any taste. "Wizards" is a good way to sample some of the best writers in the genre today.

Get "Wizards."