And Now For A Literary Interlude...

The last few books I read:


Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows
by J.K. Rowling

I'll try and go light on the spoilers here, but if you truly don't want to know anything about this book, you should probably skip this review. Heh, "review"... like I'm Roger Ebert or something. This book doesn't need a review. If you've read the first six, you're obviously going to read it. If you haven't read any of them, then you're not going to start with this one. Rowling could have released 759 pages of Harry brushing his teeth, and it would still sell more copies than War and Peace.

A few weeks ago I posted a blog with my predictions about this one. I was right about some things, and I was wrong about some things. Deathly Hallows is definitely the darkest of this series, and has very little of the awe and wonder of the early books. In many ways it reads like a Nazi Holocaust story, with the characters constantly trying to find new places to hide from the evil army. There were parts that were hard to get through, simply because they were drawn out and depressing. But the action scenes are exciting, and the plot is involving. Like most of the HP books, it gets a little convoluted here and there, but everything ties up quite nicely in the end.

Overall, Deathly Hallows is quite good, and the perfect cap for the series. If I were to rank the series, favorite to least favorite, I would say 1, 4, 2, 6, 7, 3, 5. But all of them are excellent books, and easy to read despite the length. In fact, even though this one was one of the harder ones to get through, I still managed to read it in two days.



Icewind Dale: The Crystal Shard
by R.A. Salvatore

I'm halfway through the second book in this trilogy, and so far it's pretty good. The first book, The Crystal Shard, introduces us to Drizzt Do'Urden, one of the most well-known characters in D&D lore. Drizzt is a Drow (that's a dark elf, for you non-gamers), but he's a good guy, which is rare for a Drow. Which of course, means he's an outcast - his own people think he's too nice, and other races think all dark elves are evil. Drizzt is the ultimate "fan service" character, the kind of hero Todd McFarlane would design if he wrote novels instead of comics. There is absolutely nothing about this character that isn't "cool". He fights with a pair of scimitars, he can summon a black panther, he can hide like a ninja, he knows magic, and he's nearly untouchable in battle. Even his weaknesses are badass: he's allergic to sunlight, and he's a social outcast; so he stays in the shadows and wears concealing hoods. This is exactly the kind of "ultimate" character you would design if you were a twelve-year-old boy.

That said, the book is surprisingly absorbing. Salvatore, who some might remember for killing a major Star Wars character in Vector Prime, is actually a pretty good writer. I didn't care for his Star Wars writing at the time, but here he seems to be more in his element. I think he has more freedom here, even within the boundries of D&D's strict rulebooks, because he's using his own characters. While Drizzt is obviously Salvatore's favorite, the other characters get plenty of time to shine. They aren't nearly as deep as Drizzt (a couple of them feel like they walked right off a standard Character Sheet), but they have their moments. I do wish the book had a stronger female presence, though. The only major female character, Catti-Brie, gets very little screen time. I hope she has a larger role later in the trilogy.

If you've been wanting to try any books set in the D&D universe, I would definitely start with this one.



Cell
by Stephen King

Stephen King does zombie horror. Except they're not zombies. And it's another post-apocalyptic story, like The Stand. Except this is nothing like The Stand. Well, whatever it is, this is a really good book about the last few sane people in a world gone mad. This is one of those books that just jumps right into the story, hooking you after just a few pages, and becomes hard to put down. I thought the ending was a little weak, but the journey was still worth it. This is one of my favorite Stephen King books.



Lisey's Story
by Stephen King

This is NOT one of my favorite Stephen King books, but it wasn't bad. I can't tell you much about the plot without spoiling it, so this is going to be pretty vague: The main character is the widow of a famous novelist, and a large portion of the book is her flashbacks of life with her late husband. Like other King books involving novelists (The Dark Half, Misery), King throws a lot of himself into this book. It doesn't get interesting until about halfway through, so if you start it, stick with it. It took a lot of work to get to the good parts of this book, and I can't promise that the payoff is worth it. Overall, I am glad I read it, but I can't really recommend it.



The Dragonlance Chronicles
(Dragons of Autumn Twilight, Dragons of Winter Night, and Dragons of Spring Dawning)
by Margaret Weis & Tracy Hickman

I read these because they are some of the earliest novels that take place in the D&D universe. The characters introduced are well-known to gamers, and therefore these are books you're simply "supposed to have read" if you're in the gaming crowd. Standard fantasy fare; filled with dwarves and elves, monsters and magic, dungeons and, well, dragons. Let's call it "Tolkein For Dummies", since the elements are similar, but it's much easier to read. I enjoyed them, but they aren't particularly memorable.



She's Not There: A Life In Two Genders
by Jennifer Finney Boylan

This is the autobiography of a trangender college professor. Boylan is an excellent writer, and was already a published author even before she realized she was a woman. It's both thought-provoking and funny, with a quirky sense of humor punctuating the drama. This is one of two books I generally recommend anyone who is interested in learning more about the subject, the other being True Selves. True Selves is more informative; this one is more entertaining.



Religion Gone Bad
by Mel White

One of the few non-fiction books I've read by choice, this is a report on the war between Christian fundamentalism and gay rights. Much of the book is an attack on Jerry Falwell, who ironically died shortly after this book was published... kind of making it obsolete. But Falwell's associates still spread the same message, so the book is still relevant. It was written by a gay preacher, who was once a fundie himself before he saw the light. Pastor Mel White still preaches the word of God, but without the bigotry inherent in the sermons of fundies like Pat Roberson. If even half of what this book says is true (and with the extensive footnotes and bibliography, I don't think White made anything up), then I fear greatly for the future. Our current president has committed some serious crimes with regards to seperation of church and state; more than most people know. After reading this book, I'd have to say that if there is a Hell, Jerry Falwell is roasting in it as we speak. But that's just my opinion.

Harry Potter and the Underwhelming Soundtrack

Thursday night we saw Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. Great movie, really enjoyable. -But- I think you might need to have read the book to appreciate it. It's hard to say if there were any actual "holes" due to the translation, because any questions I had would doubtlessly have been filled by memories from the book. Book 5 was my least favorite of the series, which is like saying my "least favorite" sexual position - it's still an awesome book. But it is talky and political, and while the movie only shows the most interesting parts of the book, I still think it's going to bore the more casual fans.

I loved Tonks, and I wish she'd had more screen time. Great casting all over, really - Bellatrix, Luna, Umbridge, even Mrs. Figg.

Terrible, terrible soundtrack. The score was bland, and absent in the oddest places. Heh, during Voldemort's fight with Dumbledore, I started humming "Duel of the Fates"... but it was odd that there wasn't any music playing already. The end credits music sounded like it belonged to another genre of movie altogether. They should really consider rescoring the movie before it hits DVD.

Another "Heh" - during that same battle between V&D, when Voldy made a giant firesnake, I wanted Dumbledore to shout, "You shall not pass!"

Live Free or Transform

On Sunday we saw "Live Free or Die Hard". That is a fun movie, with lots of great action scenes. Of the four Die Hard movies, this is probably my second favorite. My only real problem is that all the best action shots - and all the funniest lines - were shown in the trailers. Of course, if you want to make people see your movie, you offer them lots of eye candy and quotable quotes. But you should at least leave something to the imagination.

The working title for this movie was "Die Hard 4.0", because the plot revolves around computers. I don't know how feasible this movie is from a technological standpoint, but it's pretty scary to see what could happen if someone had complete control over the nation's computers. Justin Long is cast as an expert hacker, and given his previous role as Macintosh spokesman, he's probably now typecast for life. I don't think I've seen a whinier character in any movie. Of course you know he's going to turn around and do something brave by the end of the movie, but in the meantime I wanted to kill him myself.

"We Just Lost Marty" factor: The movie starts out pretty good, but the action scenes get more and more outrageous as it goes one. There's a scene towards the end (involving an airplane) that is out-and-out outrageous... but who cares, it was fun.

Oh, and there was one part - and maybe I'm just being nitpicky here, but this really stood out to me. Remember back when the bad guys actually stayed down? Remember when they blew up Ah-nold in The Terminator, and you thought the movie was over, until the endoskeleton crawled out of the wreckage? Did you notice how after that, no bad guy ever stays down the first time, in any movie, anywhere?

So John McClane is fighting this villain, a strikingly beautiful Asian-looking martial arts expert. The actress is actually Polish-Irish/Vietnamese, but in the movies you only have to look Japanese to be a martial arts master. So, he knocks her down a few times, she knocks him down a few times, each giving and taking blows that would finish off anyone in real life. No biggie. She knocks him over a rail, he falls a few stories, gets back up, dusts himself off. No big deal. He finds a car, drives it back up to the top floor, drives through the wall, hits the woman with the car... and while stuck to the front grill, she still keeps fighting back. Clearly I need to switch vitamins.

But was that before or after he fights the circus acrobat in the air ducts? I don't remember... all I can say is that it's funny how bad guys can be such computer experts, spending a significant portion of their lives in front of keyboards, and still fight like Batman. But all that's okay, because the Die Hard movies take place in the "Action Movie" universe, a place where cars blow up like the Death Star when you tap the bumpers, where wounds stop bleeding within minutes, and where people can outrun explosions.

Reality is depressing; fantasy is exhilarating. I saw screw accuracy, and cue the explosions.


Today we saw "The Transformers". That was also mindless fun. It is a special effects movie, and it appeals to the little kid in me, the one who wanted to grow up to be a fire truck. It's hard to reconcile the fact that it's written like a grown-up movie, and yet it's clearly a toy-line concept.

I would have loved to see two other versions of this movie. One version would follow the cartoons more closely, with the old school designs and size-changing transformations. The other version would cut out the toy/comic tie-in altogether and strictly make a serious movie about shape-changing space robot invaders. As is, the movie feels a little bit schitzophrenic. You can see where the makers made agonizing decisions about what to include, and what to cut. Anything silly or far-fetched had to be weighed against it's value as fan service. What resulted is a perfectly adequate product, but with a very specific target audience.

People who never saw the cartoon/comics/toys are going to find the movie a bit goofy, but might enjoy the SFX and action. Classic Transformers fanatics are going to be angry over all the changes, but they're still going to see it 10 times and buy the DVD.

Of course, there are plot holes big enough to drive Optimus Prime through. Like it matters. If you put aside your suspension of disbelief long enough to accept the concept of the movie, then there's probably a lot of other things you're willing to accept.

In an early issue of the Transformers comic series, there was a scene in which a human fell off a cliff, and at the last second an autobot managed to catch him. This was absurd, of course - so he fell from a lethal height, but because he landed in a robot's metal hand instead of the ground, he was safe? Riiiight. Well, that same thing happens twice in the Transformers movie.

The dialogue was okay, but it varied in quality throughout the movie. My expectations in that area where pretty low, so I was fairly impressed. It's like the writers knew which lines were bad, and even admitted it once: When Sam told Mikaela that she was "more than meets the eye", the audience groaned. But after she left, Sam scolded himself saying, "That was a bad line!"

Since the robots speak very little in the previews, I had no idea what to expect from their personalities. More than any other factor, the robots' dialogue made the movie feel silly to me. Especially Optimus. Out of all the Autobots, Optimus Prime was the only one in the comics/toons who never broke his serious persona, and was generally a humorless character. But in this movie, he had some of the funniest lines. And the part when the Autobots are trying to hide from Sam's parents... for a moment I thought I was watching Ninja Turtles.

My biggest gripe is actually one of my own pet peeves. This is just my problem, so don't take it as a mark against the movie: I had trouble following a lot of the action. Either things happened too fast, or a scene would be filmed with a shaky-cam causing everything to blur. I hate shaky-cam, it ruins a lot of movies for me. I see the artistic relevance, but artistry means squat when I can't tell what's going on (or worse, getting nauseous). On the other hand, there were a few shots that where slowed down, Matrix-style... but that's another one of my pet peeves. I know, it sounds like I should avoid action movies altogether, but I generally love them when they don't go to those particular extremes.

I know it sounds like I've said a lot of negative things, but I really did love the movie. And as long as you know what you're getting into - two hours of frenzied action with nostalgic undertones - you'll have a great time.

By the way, with the Transformers movie premiered a new trailer for a so-far-untitled giant monster movie. The twist is that the movie is shot like the Blair Witch Project - all on home video cameras, as if someone found the footage later after the disaster. It's a neat trailer, so make sure you get to Transformers early enough to see the previews.

I'm In Ur House, Upsetting Ur Kitties

We got a new kitten! KJ has been wanting one for a while, but we where waiting until we found the perfect one. Basically, she wanted one that "called to her". So today (technically yesterday now), while we were killing time before seeing a movie, we popped into PetSmart and discovered our kitten. Say hello to Sybil:

Sybil is an 8-week old female tortoiseshell. Like many kittens, she has two modes: Play and sleep.

Banchi and Honi are NOT happy about the new addition. They both ran upstairs, and have holed up in separate hiding spots. They hiss whenever we go near them, or when they see each other.

But they will get over it. Sooner or later they'll realize that the new kitten is not going away, and they'll have to accept her (or at least learn to avoid/ignore her). Until then, we're keeping their claws trimmed, and keeping an eye on them to make sure they don't hurt her.

Nicholas Cage Spectacular!

That's about the only time you'll ever see the words "Nicholas Cage" and "Spectacular" together. Nick Cage has never been one of my favorite actors, and yet I always seem to enjoy his movies. Here's the rundown on the last three Nick Cage movies I viewed.

***Next***

Nick Cage does sci-fi! ...that about sums it up. The movie "Next" is actually pretty neat... but forgettable. The concept is cool - Cage can see two minutes into the future, allowing him to do little things like dodge bullets and cheat at cards. There's some great action scenes and fun special effects, but the movie doesn't really go anywhere interesting. Julianne Moore plays his main enemy, even though they're both "good guys". And Moore can't seem to act. I've always thought Moore was a good actress, ever since her pantsless scene in "Short Cuts"... er... I mean, ever since her minor role in "The Fugitive". But in "Next", apparently the director told her to just read her lines and try not to act. Anyway, Next is an okay movie that won't put you to sleep. It wouldn't hurt to add it to your Netflix queue, but I wouldn't drive to the video store just to rent it.


***GhostRider***

It's not as dumb as it looks.

I was skeptical of this one, mainly because the previews made it look silly, stupid, and goofy. And the Ghostrider is all those things, but in a good way. I'm sure the critics ripped this one to shreds, but really, do the critics even have fun at the movies any more? Ghostrider is a popcorn muncher, nothing more or less, and shouldn't be judged next to Academy Award winners.

Ghostrider is not as deep or memorable as the "Spider-Man" or "X-Men" movies. But it keeps you awake, unlike snore-fests "Hulk" and "Elektra". In comparing it to other comic book movies, I'd say it's closest to "The Fantastic Four" - which is another movie that has been undeservedly trashed by the critics.
Cage works much harder than the role really deserves. I respect that - he acts as though this amusement park ride is an "actual" movie. Actually, it's not just Cage, most of the acting in the movie is better than I would have required... except possibly for Cage's love interest - she's just as shallow as I would have expected.

The bad guys are two-dimensional and forgettable. The main bad guy is the vampire-like son of Satan, which you'd think would be enough to make him interesting, but it doesn't. That's a little disappointing, as a good cheesy movie should have an over-the-top bad guy.

Anyway, I liked the movie, but it's not one of those I'd see over and over. I would rather see it again than "Daredevil"... but I'd also rather get a prostate exam than sit through Daredevil again, so take that however you want.

Oh, and the Mortal Kombat reference.... awesome.

***Wicker Man***

Bad, good, who cares? The original was much, much better than this okay remake, and it still stands the test of time. I liked the new one, but there's simply no reason to see it over the old one, unless you're just the world's biggest Nick Cage fan. Of course, if none of your local video stores have a copy of the old one, the new one's not a bad substitute. You should be able to say you've seen at least one version, because it's just a neat story.

Rant on Retro-Gaming

Video games have come a long way. They're prettier than ever before, with more realism and depth than the makers of "Pong" ever would have thought possible. But that depth comes at a price - now that video games have more in common with books, I find I just don't have time to play them. While I like to get sucked into a good adventure game when I can, most of the time I just can't stick with one game long enough to play through it. Sometimes I just want to sit back and blow things up, without worrying about where to find the Star Crest to open the courtyard door. That's why I like arcade classics. Well, nostalgia's a big factor too, but mostly I like the fact that I can just turn them on and play.

But I hate, hate, hate the way they're sold! What is the deal with putting ten classic arcade games (only three of which are still fun) on one disc (or cart), labelling it "Volume 1", then selling it for $40? Guys, these games have been paid for. You made your money back on these games decades ago. The people who programmed them have retired. Those of you currently working at the company aren't even actually working when you release these classic compilations. There's simply no reason to have six volumes of Namco's Greatest Hits, when each disk contains 5% games and 95% "History of Namco" videos nobody's going to watch.

No wonder emulation is so popular. You can fit hundreds of ROMs on a CD, and the same ROMs work on different emulators/systems. Meanwhile, I've bought "Joust" like, 14 times for various video game systems. That's a lot of money for a game that takes about 30 kb of hard drive space. But it's not even the money that really gets to me, it's the presentation. These are "twitch" games, and as such, I like to play one for a few minutes then switch to another. It's less fun if I keep having to change out CDs/DVDs/cartridges, so having more games on one disk really does make it better. Plus, the "turn on and play" advantage is becoming less and less of a feature, since you have to sit through 10 minutes of developer logos and loading screens when you first put in the CD.

Luckily I tend to do my retro-gaming on cartridge-based handheld systems, so loading isn't a factor, but there's still a few minutes between the time I first put in the cartridge, and when I actually get to play the game. I understand that everyone wants to get credit, and everyone wants you to see their pretty little company logo. But again, these games were programmed 20 years ago. What the game company is doing now is basically burning them onto a CD for us. Why does it take 8 development teams to do this, and does each one have to show me their logo?

The worst part is, the game companies don't get accurate feedback on these complaints. If a compilation doesn't sell well, then the company says, "Well, I guess retrogaming isn't really 'in' right now." Never mind that they were trying to sell six ancient games for $30. But a compilation doesn't really have to sell that well for them to make a profit, since production costs are so low. If a compilation makes the slightest profit, then they rush to find six more old games for the next volume - making extra-sure that only two are popular classics, and the other four are obscure rubbish.

I think the game companies are starting to take the hint, as I have started to see a few classics disks with larger libraries. The PS2 collections have more games on them than the PS1 collections; the DS collections have more games on them than the GBA collections. I'm sure the game companies would like us to believe that this is due to the higher capacities of the newer formats, but we're not that stupid. I've seen the bootleg GBA carts with nearly 200 8-bit NES games on them. And yet Capcom releases a "Capcom Mini Mix" collection for the GBA with 3 (Wow, 3!) 8-bit NES games on it. It was a fair selection - Bionic Commando, Strider, and Mighty Final Fight - but they really could have tried harder.

To me, the worst offender is Nintendo itself. A few years ago they released a series of "Nintendo Classics" for the GBA, all re-releases of 8-bit NES games, at around $20 each. They could have easily fit the entire set on one cart and still made a profit, but that's just not how they think. And let's not forget how they kept re-releasing the classic Mario games for the GBA, one at a time. Why not "Super Mario All-Stars", like they had on the SNES? I'm sure you know the answer to that one, and it has nothing to do with cartridge capacity.

I recently purchased "Konami Classics Arcade Hits" for the DS, and it's not bad. It has 15 games on it, about half of which are still fun to play. My biggest beef with it is that I was hoping it would make their previous GBA collection, "Konami Arcade Advanced", obsolete. But no, the new one includes some of the games on the previous cart, but not all of them; and the GBA cart has a neat "updated graphics" option for a couple of the games on it.

I also have "Retro Atari Classics", which takes an interesting concept and does nothing good with it. They took ten classic arcade games (of which only about 3 are still fun), and let three famous grafitti artists give them a visual makeover. The problem is, only one of the grafitti artists is any good. But at least it gives you the option of playing with the original graphics instead, in case you don't like the Remix version. Another problem (on the DS version, anyway) is that they overuse the stylus. The stylus actually makes sense as a trackball alternative, but they didn't even give the option of using the joypad instead. And that's just mean. While I think the touch screen is one of the coolest features of the DS, I do wish the game companies wouldn't force us to use it as a primary means of control.

One of the better classics compilations, at least in presentation, is "Activision Anthology" for the GBA. Now we're talking about a serious collection, with over 50 games on it. Unfortunately, they're Atari 2600 games, which means they're extremely dated. But Activision always did make the best games for the Atari (Pitfall, Chopper Command, etc), so you're still getting the cream of the crop. And again, twitch games - you really don't need good graphics to have fun.

One of the most confusing is Namco's GBA releases. First they released "Namco Museum" with the following games: Galaxian, Ms. Pac-Man, Galaga, Pole Position, and Dig Dug. Then they released "Namco Museum 50th Anniversary" which included Pac-Man, Ms. Pac-Man, Galaga, Dig Dug, and Bosconian. For the same system. I just don't get it. Hopefully when they get around to making a DS collection, they'll use their heads.

She's Got a Chicken to Ride...

This is how lunatics entertain themselves:

A "Mondegreen" is a misunderstood song lyric. The term was invented when a certain author misheard "upon the green" as "mondegreen". The example I hear of most is "'Scuse me while I kiss this guy" instead of "kiss the sky". You can find mondegreen web sites all over the web, just Google "misheard song lyrics". There's a good database at www.kissthisguy.com.

While some are more well-known than others, none of them are universal. There's oodles of different ways people sing the lyrics to "Louie Louie". And just ask 10 different people what Springsteen says after "Blinded by the light..." I think my favorite Mondegreen is the one Phoebe mentions in an episode of Friends, the Elton John song that says, "Hold me closer Tony Danza..."

I have a slight hearing problem. Noises aren't too quiet; I hear volume just fine. But if there's any interfering noises, I have trouble picking out the sounds I want to hear. So I have a big problem with song lyrics, because the instruments are too distracting. As such, I can have a favorite song that I've heard for years, without ever having memorized the lyrics. So I got in the habit of making up my own.

You probably pity KJ about right now.

These days, most of my alternate lyrics aren't really "mondegreens", as I've pretty much gotten into the habit of singing the wrong words to every song on the radio, whether I understand the actual words or not. You can probably blame Weird Al. He's always been one of my favorite performers, and ever since I first heard of him in the 80s, I've been coming up with my own alternate lyrics for popular songs. The main difference being, I suck at it. In college, my buddy Alan and I came up with lots of odd lyrics, and we completely rewrote "Here's a Quarter" with our version titled, "Ned McWhorter Just Fell Down The Stairs". ("Call someone who glistens... and might live on Spam... or one of them chocolate eclairs...")

A couple of years later I started singing this version of the song "I Swear": "I swear... Like a sailor with tacks in his boot... I swear... Like a soldier who just shot his foot... Whenever there's trouble, whenever there's pain, Whenever I just washed the car and it rains, I swear..."

But most of the time it's not nearly that complex or thought out. There's a lot of commonly used words in songs that I just automatically substitute with other words, often without even thinking about it. For example, I often replace "love" with "slug". This works well both as a noun ("You Can't Hurry Slugs") and a verb ("Slug The One You're With"). However, if the context has someone "falling in" love, then I replace love with "lava" ("Don't Fall In Lava").

I also replace "peace" with "peas", for example: "Carry on my wayward son... There'll be peas when you have corn." One of the sillier things I do is replace "way" with "curds" (curds and whey, get it?), as in, "Oooooh, baby I love your curds..." On the rare occasion I hear the song "I Fall To Pieces, I sing the words, ""I swallow Reese's..." Lets see... instead of "Heaven Is A Place On Earth", I sing, "Heaven Is A Place With Smurfs."

One December at work, the radio station would alternate between Christmas songs and classic rock. It was kind of surreal, one minute you'd be listening to "Rudolph, the Red-Nosed Reindeer", the next minute they'd be playing the Stones' "Paint It Black". Which led me to start singing, "I see a reindeer and I want it painted black..." Now that you've read that, I dare you to try to hear the song again without thinking that.

Sometimes I'll come up with something subconsiously, and sing it without even knowing I'm singing it, regardless of who's around. Luckily only KJ was in the car when I belted out this highly perverse alternate verse for "I Will Follow Him" (Warning, not for young eyes): "I love him, I love him, I love him, and when he comes I'll swallow, I'll swallow, I'll swallow..." I've probably ruined that song for you for life.

Anybody else got any favorites they want to post here?

My Harry Potter Predictions

Warning: This blog assumes you have read the first six books, and may contain spoilers.

I only have a couple of iron-clad predictions for the next Harry Potter book: It will make bazillions of dollars, and someone's going to spoil the ending for me before I manage to finish reading it. Beyond that, your guess is really as good as mine. However, here's a few Q&As that have been buzzing around my head:


Is Harry going to die?
It certainly looks like he is, which is exactly why I think he won't. So many people are worried about Harry's fate in the upcoming book. By now, anyone who's read the sixth book (The Half-Blood Prince) has pondered whether Harry is a horcrux. When Voldemort zapped baby Harry, he was transferring part of himself into the kid. That's also why Voldy hasn't been able to kill him, because doing so would kill Voldemort himself. Sure, Dumbledore told Harry that he was protected by hi Mother's love or some crap, but that was so Harry wouldn't find out he was a horcrux. In Book 6 it was revealed that Harry has to find and destroy all the horcruxes in order to be rid of Voldemort forever. So it really looks like the only way to kill Voldemort is to kill Harry Potter.

But the fact that people already see this, is what tells me it won't happen. When I read the first book, I was sure Snape was the one trying to steal the Sorceror's Stone. There was so much foreshadowing, that it had to be true. Yeah, it could have been a red herring, but I knew it was a children's book, so it wouldn't be that deep. And yet it was. I think Rowling is once again trying to trick us. There are so many people out there who already think they know how Book 7 is going to end, that it can't possibly end that way.

My guess is that sometime in the first half of Book 7, Harry is going to figure out that he's a horcrux. He's going to go through the rest of the book believing he's going to have to die in order to kill Voldemort. Then, at the end, there's going to be a twist that allows him to live.

One more thing: I've heard several people say, "Harry's death is the only way it can end." Then they'll go on about things like honor, duty, a boy becoming a man and realizing that he has to sacrifice himself to save everyone else, yada yada yada. I don't care how it's presented, killing Harry would be a piss-poor way to end the series. I have really enjoyed the series so far, and I have to believe that I'm going to enjoy Book 7 as well. I believe that overall, I'm going to have a great impression of the series, and I'll want to read all seven again someday. But if Harry dies, I probably won't like the series as much. Therefore, the boy will live. I know that's not exactly logical reasoning, but that's what I believe.


Is Dumbledore really dead?
When the fifth book (Order of the Phoenix) was on its way out, Rowling announced that someone was going to die in it. When I got to the book's climax, I knew someone was going to die soon. But when I read the death scene itself, I said, "Was that it?" That's the scene that made Rowling says made her cry when she wrote it? Sirius Black didn't die, he fell through a door. What a freaking cop-out. She could bring him back any time she feels like it. In a magical world, a true death scene requires things like, I don't know, a BODY. I mean, look at Peter Pettigrew. They assumed he'd been disintegrated when they found his finger.

But Dumbledore's case is a little different. They found a body, plus his picture was in the painting. But I'm still a little suspicious. For starters, the way it happened - Snape shoots Dumbledore, Dumbledore falls over the edge. Later they find his body on the ground. When I read it, my first thought was, "That's when they pulled the switch". What kind of switch, I don't know. Maybe Dumbledore zapped himself into the painting. But for some reason I have doubts regarding whethert it was actually Dumbledore's body they found on the ground.

Maybe Dumbledore will be back in the next book. Maybe he'll appear towards the end, just in time to tell Harry how to kill Voldy without dying himself. Maybe Dumbledore will even die again at the end of Book 7, sacrificing himself to save Harry. Or not. I don't know.

Book 7 is going to be so different from the others. The first six were so formulaic - they start with Harry at the Dursley's house, then he goes to school, it goes through the entire school year, then he goes back to the Dursleys. Dumbledore is also a strong part of the formula. He's like a Dungeonmaster, indirectly guiding Harry through his adventures, giving Harry hints and accomplishing through Harry what he can't do himself, then explaining it all at the end of the book. But with Harry not going back to Hogwarts, and no Dumbledore to guide him, and Harry having grown up so much by now, this book is going to break the formula all kinds of ways. Which makes it much harder to predict.


Is Snape really a bad guy?
The best I can say, is that there's still more to Snape than meets the eye. I know, "Duh." Rowling fooled us in the first book, it wouldn't be unlike her to do it again. Potter fans are quick to point out that in Book 6, when Snape is about to kill Dumbledore, the headmaster's pleas are sort of ambiguous. Is Dumbledore pleading for Snape not to kill him? Highly doubtful, that just doesn't sound like him. The way the scene plays out, it's almost as if Dumbledore and Snape had some sort of plan, and "killing" Dumbledore was part of the plan.


So who will die in Book 7?
Beats me. I really hope that Harry, Ron, Hermione, and Ginny stay alive. If one of them does die, my money's on Ron. On the other hand, Rowling did a lot of pushing characters together in the sixth book. The whole Harry/Ginny thing seemed a little rushed and/or forced. I can't help but wonder if Rowling needed one more emotional card to play in Book 7, one more potential tragedy for Harry to overcome before the final battle.


Will there ever be another Harry Potter Book?
Rowling has made it very clear that this is meant to be a seven-book series. However, this is also the first thing she's ever written. She doesn't know a damn thing about the curses from which writers suffer. Often you think a story is over and done with, and then your brain starts imagining further scenerios for your characters. Eventually you can't stop obsessing until you write them down. I have no doubt Rowling will take a nice long break from the Potterverse after Book 7 hits the shelves. Maybe she'll start spending more time with her family, or maybe she'll start writing something else. But sooner or later she's going to get the itch to revisit Harry's world. Maybe she'll give in to the temptation, maybe she won't.

Spider-Man 3 (And the usual theater rant)

Nashville friends, I've said this before, but it bears repeating: Regal Green Hills 16, at the Mall at Green Hills. Seriously, it's the only way I'll go to a theater on a Friday or Saturday night. It's a neighborhood full of conservative rich people, and the theater's management knows it. They throw out people who talk on cell phones or make too much noise, and I've never seen more well-behaved audiences. Plus, it's a Regal, which means comfortable stadium seating.

Last Saturday night was the worst experience I've ever had at that theater... and it was still pretty damn good. The audience was full of teenagers, and yes, some of them were talking (both to each other and on their cell phones). And yet overall, the room was still quieter than a Wednesday afternoon at any other theater. I remember when I saw "The Mummy Returns" on a Friday night at Hollywood 27, the audience reminded me of the theater scene in Gremlins.

I've noticed that people have started using their cell phones as flashlights when returning to their seats after a bathroom/concession break. Is this really neccessary? We got along fine before cell phones, and back then we didn't have those neat little light strips on the stairs. I guess technology really is making us helpless.

Another tip for the Green Hills theater: Park on the lowest level of the parking garage. Then when you leave the movie, use the lower level exit. You'll be right at your car.

Anyway, the movie. This is not going to be spoiler-free, so let me bottom-line it for you: If you liked the first two, this one is almost as good.

Before I saw Spider-Man 3, I read a lot of negative reviews. I agree with most of what the reviewers had to say - the script wasn't very good, the plot was a bit convoluted and contrived, and some of the emotional scenes were actually painful to watch. But it's a comic-book movie, and the worst thing a comic book movie can do is bore me. (Yeah, I'm looking at you, Elektra!) Spidey 3 did not bore me; not even close.

The problem is the high bar set by Spideys 1 & 2. While still cheesy in their own right, those two were just good enough to trancend the status of "comic book movie", and were enjoyable even by people who don't know the difference between Marvel and DC. But I really think you'd have to be a fan of the comics (or at least the cartoons) to love Spidey 3. The movie is written so that fanboys could say things like, "Hey, that's Gwen Stacey! She was in the comic book!" It's also a bit less believable than the first two. Not that 1 & 2 were particularly believable, but they both had "science gone mad" themes that could classify them as "sci-fi" instead of just "comic book movies". This one is a definite comic book movie, no question.

I did not like Venom's "origin". He just comes to Earth from a meteor, like "The Blob". And just happens to touch down near Peter Parker. Gosh, how lucky can a symbiote get? It's like he was specifically trying to target someone with super powers, which would have been a neat plot point if they'd ever actually said it. Once he bonds with Peter's costume, it turns the suit black. No "suit grows around him" ability, and this version of Spidey already has organic web shooters, so it's a bit unclear how the suit really helps him. Spidey mentions that he feels more powerful, but since we really never knew the limits of his spider-strength, that's not as impressive as it could have been. Symbiotes are supposed to give back a little, ya know? All this one does is make Peter act like a jerk (complete with corny "Evil Peter" haircut). I mean, the nerve of some aliens; no wonder immigration laws are so tough.

The Sandman is given a backstory that ties in with Peter's, and has his own sob-story reasons for being a bad guy. If there were ever a series of movies to make you sympathetic for villains, this is it. Green Goblin? His experiments make him crazy. Doc Oc? Loses his wife, and his cybernetic implants make him crazy. Harry Osborn? Not really a "criminal" per se, but thinks Spider-Man killed his dad. And now Sandman, who is stealing to help his sick daughter. It's like the director is trying to say, "There are no bad people, just misunderstood people with different points of view." What I wouldn't give for a villain Spidey could pummel without saying, "I don't want to hurt you!" I suppose Venom fits the bill, but even Eddie Brock is under the influence of the symbiote (he just happens to like it).

Topher Grace as Eddie Brock - not the casting choice I would have made, but he does a great job. He's sleazy, slimey, and scuzzy; an unethical fast-talking greaseball with no depth. I honestly don't think I would have recognized the character as Topher Grace. Toby Macguire looks more like Eric Foreman than Topher does.

The movie's climax is extremely over-the-top and "comic-booky". The trap Venom and Sandman set for Spidey is melodramatic and grandiose, with giant evil spiderwebs and a dangling damsel and a super-sized Sandman. Venom still doesn't show much depth, and even at the end of the movie he's pretty much just an evil alien monster who looks like Spawn.

Peter Parker has trouble keeping his mask on. Throughout the trilogy, and especially in this one, he's constantly pulling it off at weird times, or having it yanked off by his enemies. I think the director wants us to see him as a person, instead of as a one dimensional comic book character. It's the whole "which is the disguise" debate regarding secret identities: Where "Bruce Wayne" is just an act that Batman sometimes puts on, "Spider-Man" is the act that Peter Parker puts on. Still, if my mask came off that easily, I think I'd consider investing in some velcro or something. And what happened to his Spider-Sense? There were a couple of great Spider-Sense scenes in 1 & 2, but in this movie it seems like they forgot all about it.

Overall it's a very fun - but very flawed - comic book movie. If you're the kind of person who likes that sort of thing, then I imagine you know it. There is talk of a fourth movie featuring Carnage and the Lizard. I would like to see that, but if it doesn't happen, I'm still happy. This movie wraps up the Harry & Peter story quite nicely. If they made a fourth one, I'd like to see Pete and MJ get married at the end, just to wrap up that storyline. But I don't want to see the series go beyond that; if Spidey 3 is any indication, there's no way they could keep up the quality.

VA Tech Shooting Caused by Talking Alien Raccoons

...at least, somebody probably thinks so. I'd like to tell you that the actual headlines aren't quite as silly (or in as poor taste), but at this point I honestly can't.

The bodies weren't even cold yet, and the media's biggest attention-hounds were already trying to use the tragedy to support their own agenda. Let's take Jack Thompson, for instance. He hates video games so much, that he scans the newspaper every day for atrocities he can blame on them. So when something like the Virginia Tech shooting happens, good ol' JT already has his speech nearly written; he just has to fill in the specific names and dates. The good news is, nobody has to pay attention to anything Thompson says any more, because you can pretty much guess it. A postal worker goes on a shooting spree? Must have been playing GTA. Peeping tom terrorizes neighborhood? Must've learned his voyeuristic habits from playing The Sims. Obesity on the rise? Blame Pac-Man. World Trade Center attacks? The terrorists must've been playing Microsoft Flight Simulator.

Jack Thompson blames the VA Tech shootings on Counterstrike. Dr. Phil also agrees that video games must have been an influence. Neither has any actual evidence to base this on - no games were found in Cho Seung Hui's possession, and his roommate confirmed that he never saw Cho playing them. But why mess up a perfectly good theory with facts? Meanwhile, Reverend Fred Phelps, head of the charming "God Hates America" and "God Hates Fags" websites, is claiming that the tragedy is yet more evidence that America is being punished for its sins (you know, like tolerating homosexuals)... and is using it as an excuse to disrupt the funerals. And Christian news website "One News Now" somehow managed to blame the shootings on the fact that evolution is being taught in public schools.

When people accuse this of being a "blameless society", it usually means that it's the criminals who come up with excuses for what they've done. But now it's not just the perpetrators making the excuses; everyone wants to get in on the act. Now bear with me. Isn't it possible - even remotely - that the shooting had nothing to do with God or video games or evolution or violent movies or karma or astrology or Harry Potter? Isn't it possible that Cho Seung Hui is just an asshole? Can we please let a tragedy go by without trying to blame it on whatever "hot button" is currently vogue? When you come up with ridiculous objects of blame, all you're doing is helping the criminals by giving them new things to try in court.

Now, I'm all for examining Mr. Hui to find out how his brain works. I'll happily allow my tax dollars to go towards researching the psychopathic mind. Anything to keep this kind of thing from happening again. But Jack Thompson, Fred Phelps, and the rest of these loudmouths aren't trying to probe a killer's mind. They're just furthering their own careers, and playing "the blame game" without a shred of real evidence to support their opinions.

Related Articles/Sites:

Reverend Fred Phelps / God Hates America

Thompson Blames Video Games For Virginia Tech Shooting

Dr. Phil Blames Video Games for Virginia Tech Massacre

Creationist: Teaching 'evolution-only' dampens respect for human life

Warrant Reveals No Games In Cho Seung Hui's Posession

The Obligatory Star Wars Blog

I figured that if I didn't post at least one "Star Wars"-related blog, they'd revoke my geek license. For the past couple of weeks, KJ and I have been re-watching the Star Wars movies. Even though we didn't make it a one-day marathon, it's still the first time we'd watched the entire series in sequential order. And we hadn't seen any Star Wars movies since Episode III was still in the theaters, well over a year ago. To non-Starwoids, this might not seem like that long a time. But to people like us, going that long without Star Wars is blasphemy.

When each Prequel hit the theater, many die-hard Star Wars fans felt betrayed and angry. Lucas didn't write it exactly the way some fans would have. Lucas left out things that some fans wanted to see. Whine whine whine, gripe gripe gripe. Some fans were so pissed off at Episode I, that they only saw Episode II twice on opening day. It's quite funny to see someone spend all day standing in line, waiting to be the first person to buy a ticket for Episode III, and seeing him pass the time by complaining about how badly Episode II sucked.

I had complaints too, but the damage has been done, and time heals all wounds. This time I was able to watch the Prequel trilogy with fresh eyes, and see them for what they were, not what they weren't. I was able to look at them more objectively, both as Star Wars movies, and as ordinary Sci-Fi/Fantasy movies.

And I've got to say, the Prequels have been judged way too harshly. Just like the original trilogy, the prequels are fun, pretty, imaginative, and action-filled. They aren't serious movies, and they should not be judged as such. The classic trilogy wasn't serious either; it was the rabid fans who made Star Wars out to be more than it really was. Lucas set out to make an homage to the old, campy serials. It was the fans who tried to turn that into serious sci-fi.

It's hard not to take them seriously. Most of us geeks have been watching the original trilogy over and over since we were younglings. Movies like that become a part of you. Not in the trite "I laughed, I cried, it became a part of me" sense, but I mean, movies like that help form and shape your mind. Questioning the perfection of Star Wars is like questioning other aspects of your personality. Do I really enjoy video games? Yes. Do I really like denim jackets? Yes. Did Han shoot Greedo first? Yes.

And that's why we're so resistent to change. Fans have seen Greedo get shot so many times, that the scene has gelled in their heads. It's simply fact now. They're as sure of it as they're sure of gravity, Abraham Lincoln, and microwave burritos. So when George came along with the "Special Editions" that changed facts around a little, it broke many a fan's basic understanding of the universe. But it was good that George did that, because it softened the blow for the Prequels.

When the first Star Wars movie came out in 1977, it was groundbreaking; there just wasn't anything like at the time. It paved the way for mass-market space fantasy. So when "Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace" was released in 1999, fans were ready for the Second Coming of Christ. Would Lucas be able to do it again? Expectations were impossible to live up to, which made the disappointment all the worse. Yeah, Jar Jar was annoying. So? He wasn't the movie, he was the comic relief. If you don't like it, then don't laugh. And sure, Jake Lloyd couldn't act. Got news for ya, most kids his age can't act. Sure there's exceptions (Osmet, Fanning, and those lifelike robots they build for those Welch's commercials), but for the most part, you have to judge kids on a different scale.

You can complain all day about midichlorians, but there's really no reason to. The fact that Lucas rationalized a way to gauge how force-sensitive a Jedi is, in no way lessens the mystical coolness of the Force itself. Really, the worst sin committed by Episode I is that it's a bit boring. With only a couple of really great action scenes, it just doesn't stand up to repeated viewings. No, wait, the worst sin committed by Episode I is that it has a fart joke. I could have done without that.

You know how when you really expect something to be bad, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy? I personally believe that by the time "Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones" hit the theaters, Star Wars fans had already decided that the Prequels were going to suck. That's the only explanation I can come up with. Just like Phantom Menace, I saw it on opening night, and the crowd loved every minute of it. When the final credits rolled, I said, "Thank God, that'll satisfy the critics. Lucas has made up for the first one."

So naturally I was floored when I started visiting Star Wars message boards, and found out that this one was just as unpopular. I could understand the flaws they'd found in Episode I, but this time I knew George had a hit. Which is not to say I don't see the flaws, I just don't think the bad outweighed the good this time.

Okay, fine, Hayden isn't a very good actor. What's worse, he tends to drag down the performances of those around him. Natalie Portman isn't bad, but her scenes with Hayden make her look brain-dead. The love story isn't very well-written, which was a great disappointment to those hoping for another Han/Leia dynamic. And oh, this time the comic relief consists of bad C3P0 puns - not nearly as painful as watching Jar Jar bump into things, in my opinion.

So yeah, there is some stuff to dislike, but where else are you going to see an army of lightsaber-swinging Jedi battle insect people and space robots? And if that sounds cheesy to you, let me remind you that the title of the movie is "Attack of the Clones"... Shakespeare enthusiasts look elsewhere. It's still a delight watching Palpatine play two armies against each other for his own political gain, and watching Yoda kick ass is just plain fun.

Now, "Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith" was exceptionally good. Almost "Classic Trilogy" good, and that's really saying something. Yeah, Hayden still can't act, but we're used to it by this point. And even Palpatine chews up the scenery a little bit, in the scenes right after his face gets melted. That disappointed me - up until that point, he had been the best actor in the trilogy. But for a few minutes in Episode III, he reminds me of the type of villain you'd see in a "Mighty Morphin' Power Rangers" episode. And why did Lucas feel the need to melt Palpatine's face in the first place? I'd always assumed his face got that way through years of channelling the evil of the Dark Side. I really didn't need this explanation.

But a few gripes do not destroy a movie. As much as there was to dislike, there was a lot more to love. And yet, I've still seen a lot of websites that flat-out say, "The Prequels were stupid." Now, let's be serious here. The prequels are very different from each other, and yet share a lot of similarities with the Classic Trilogy. If you can honestly tell me that you hate all three Prequels, but love all three of the Classic Trilogy, then I've got some sad news for you. You don't really like Star Wars at all, and every bit of passion you think you have for the Classic Trilogy, is really just nostalgia. Or maybe it's the other way around, and every bit of hatred you have for the Prequels is just pettyness.

If you had never seen any of the Star Wars movies in your life, then you decided to watch all six in a row right now, I seriously doubt you'd come back saying, "I hated 1-3, but loved 4-6." You might like four of them, or two of them, or one Prequel and two Classics, or some other odd combination. But those of you who think that the Classics are God, and the Prequels are manure - you're just fooling yourselves. My advice? Do what we did. Spend a year or two without Star Wars, then watch all six in a row. Then maybe, just maybe, you'll be able to figure out how you really feel.

Btw, the same goes for those of you who hate the "Special Editions" of 4-6. Yeah, sure, George screwed up your childhood memories a litte. But if you'd just get past that, you'd realize that they really are superior versions of the movies. You can argue all day about whether Han shot Greedo first, but you'd be missing the point. Those are tiny details of an epic legend, the kind of things that change each time the story is retold. The beauty of the Special Edition DVDs is that they look like the Prequel trilogy.

I specify "DVDs" because the Special Editions are much improved now from when they were released in the theaters in the late 90s. In fact, when I saw the Special Editions in the theaters, as much as I liked them, even I thought they were sort of gimmicky, and the new stuff stood out too much from the old stuff. Not so much with the DVD releases. Every frame is bright and colorful, (nearly) every special effect is realistic. When you watch all six in a row, it's much harder to distinguish the older ones from the newer, giving the entire series a uniform look.

The Prequels and Special Editions disappointed a lot of people, but what's done is done. If you let yourself forget the quibbles, and stop obsessing over how you thought the movies should have been written, then you'll find that it's a fun set of movies. I remember after Episode I came out, I saw an online petition where people were trying to get George Lucas not to direct the other two. In fact, fans were trying to get Peter Jackson to direct II and III. Now, I love the "Lord of the Rings" movies nearly as much as Star Wars. But this is the same LOTR Trilogy in which Samwise excretes the line, "I can't carry it for you... but I... can carry... you!" Clearly one of the cheesiest scenes in cinema history, but we love it anyway. Why? Because at that point, we're so sucked into the movie, that cheesiness whizzes right over our heads. Star Wars is no different. If you let yourself get sucked in, you'll have a great time.

Casino Royale

Let me start by saying I'm not a huge James Bond fan. I like the movies, but they are just movies to me. The parts I tend to like are the parts that annoy Bond purists. I don't care a lick for the intrigue, the espionage, or the politics. In fact, I'm pretty much in it for the action and the gadgets. As a character, I find Bond himself to be a bit of an ass. Which I realize is part of his charm, but it really doesn't work for me. Also, Bond has a reputation for being untouchable and invincible, the type of hero who can walk out of a firefight with his tux still nice and clean. Again, that's part of the charm, but it also means there's less tension. I'm never really worried about whether the hero is going to survive; of course he'll make it, he's James Frikkin Bond!

I also haven't seen half of them. I've seen all the Pierce Brosnan ones, and "For Your Eyes Only", "Moonraker"... I'm pretty sure I've seen at least three others all the way through, including a Sean Connery one, and that one with what's-his-name, you know, George Lazerbeak or something... and bits and pieces of several others. Okay, I'm playing dumb, but the point is, Bond has always been one of those peripheral characters that I enjoy without being "into".

So why am I even reviewing this movie? Well, mostly because KJ told me to. And because overall, I really enjoyed it. It was well-written and had some great action sequences, and I never found myself bored. Which says a lot, since my aforementioned favorite Bond element - the gadgets - are nearly non-existent in this outing. Daniel Craig does a great job as a young Bond, who is already arrogent but doesn't yet have the finesse to back it up. My biggest gripe is his appearance - he looks great in the suit, sitting at the poker table, flashing that charismatic smile - but he really doesn't look young enough to be "young Bond". And I can't stand his ears. He's got a great body, though, if you're into that, and you do get to see a rather significant amount of it.

Rabid continuity-buffs will be (well, already are - I've seen some of the boards) greatly disappointed. What with it being Bond's first job, and he's already got Dame Dench as his boss - that pretty much throws the earlier Bond films out the window. There's never been much continuity between Bond films anyway, IMO, so it's not really a big loss. I mean, it's obvious that most Bond films are set in the era in which they're filmed (or Connery would have used the internet more), so it's ridiculous to think this same secret agent has remained so young for so many decades. Each Bond film (again, IMO) is meant to be enjoyed as a film by itself - that's why they're not numbered.

WJLM Factor: 15 minutes.
WJLM stands for "We Just Lost Marty", and indicates how long into the film my brother would stop watching, having decided the movie is too unrealistic. Early in the movie, there is a beautiful chase scene - on foot, through a construction site. The guy Bond is chasing must have been an Olympic gymnast before turning to a life of crime, judging by his ability to leap over walls and climb sheer surfaces. It's like watching Bond chase down Spiderman. But it's a great scene, and one that quickly pulls you into the movie.

Anyway, if you're Bond fan, then you've already seen it. If you're not, then I don't think this movie is going to change your mind about the series. But it's worth the trip to the theater, so if you've been riding the fence, go ahead and buy a ticket. I think you'll have a good time.

Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut

Wow, it's finally legal!

Okay, first a little backstory. Note, this is more simplified than accurate, so if you want the whole story, look it up. There's links at the end, with more info.

In 1978, Richard Donner directed the cinematic blockbuster, Superman, starring Christopher Reeve. Donner went ahead and shot footage for Superman 2 as well. However, when the time came to produce Superman 2, they gave the project to Richard Lester, and much of Donner's footage was discarded. Then, a couple of years ago, some guy put together a lot of Donner's lost footage, took out some of Lester's, and released what he dubbed the "Richard Donner" version of the film.

You have to admire a guy like this. Though he knew it was risky, he sold copies of it over the internet. But - he only charged for the price of the tape and the shipping. He refused to make any profit on the project; he only wanted to more people to see what he considered to be a superior version of the film. Well, the tactic must have worked, because now it's been officially released on DVD.

This new version does not replace the original version, in my opinion. While a lot of the changes are for the better, the execution isn't perfect. Some of the restored scenes are actually screen tests or other raw footage that doesn't quite mesh with the rest of the film. The sound might be bad in one scene, the editing my be jumpy in another, the lighting might be lacking somewhere else. So if you're just in the mood to sit down and enjoy a Superman movie, you might want to stick with the original version. The RD Cut is more of a fascinating look at how different directors handle the same story.

Now for the specific changes. Note, there's a few spoilers ahead. Granted, if you're reading this, then you've probably already seen the normal version of S2 enough times to know the importants stuff. Three Kryptonian villians find their way to Earth, Superman gives up his powers to be with Lois, etc. But even so, if you want to be surprised at the new stuff, stop reading now.

Right from the start, you know you're watching a different movie. One of the earliest scenes - where Lois investigates a group of terrorists in Paris - has been cut completely. In the theatrical cut, the Superman throws the terrorist bomb off into space, and the resulting explosion breaks the Phantom Zone villains out of their prison. In the Donner version, the Phantom Zone prison is shattered by one of the missles Superman deflected at the end of Superman 1.

Lois Lane is no longer obsessed with freshly squeezed orange juice, but her vitamin deficiency hasn't hurt her eyesight any - she makes the Clark/Superman connection much earlier in the film. She can't even wait for Niagra Falls this time, opting instead to jump out the window of the Daily Planet. Just like the other version, Clark manages to save her without changing into his tights. But once again, Lois isn't fooled for long, and soon Clark is forced to reveal his secret. Lois doesn't wait around for Clark to stick his hand in the fireplace this time. After all, she has places to go, words to misspell. Now she takes the more direct approach... she just shoots him.

"You know, Lois, if you'd been wrong, you would have just killed Clark Kent." "Not with blanks." D'oh! Apparently super-genius is not one of his powers this time around. By the way, this scene is one of the more obvious "screen test" clips. You can tell right away that it was shot at a different time than the rest of the film.

So, the Kryptonian Kryminals reach Earth, and they're a little less cheery this time around. The more lighthearted scenes have been cut, such as Ursa's arm wrestling and Non's inability to use heat vision. Actually, overall there is a lot less humor in this version of the film. Apparently Richard Lester thought that Donner's vision was too dark, and decided to throw in as much levity as possible for the theatrical release. Personally, I always thought it was cute how the bad guys changed Mount Rushmore to look like themselves. But in the Donner's cut, it's a much more grim scene involving the toppling of the Washington Monument. But that does flow better, because it leads right in to the "assault on the White House" scene.

Meanwhile, as Lois basks in the afterglow at the Fortress of Solitude, Clark (who really needs to buy a TV for his arctic getaway) decides to give up his powers. But this time he talks to his father instead of his mother. And it's a much more interesting conversation, IMO. But even better, after Clark realizes he screwed up and treks back to the Fortress, we find out HOW he gets his powers back. In the theatrical version, he just sulks around until he sees a glowing crystal. In the Donner cut, he actually gets to have one last conversation with Jor-El. It seems Papa-El had one more trick up his sleeve after all, and is able to use the last of his own power to restore Clark. And before you can say "the son becomes the father and the father becomes the son," Superman is back in action.

So, the Zod Squad invades the Daily Planet, and while there's a few alternate takes, there's not much to report here. I think they cut the line where Lois Lane's co-worker says, "The big one's just as strong as Superman!" And more humor is lost when they take out the "persistent payphone guy" from the "bad guys blow Metropolis" scene.

Now, for my favorite change in the movie. The villains confront Superman at the Fortress of Solitude. And... No stupor-ridiculous made-up powers! No "throwing the giant S symbol!" No "teleport tag!" Just a straight cut to the final confrontation, where Superman tricks them into losing their powers.

But this payoff comes at a price. For starters, the Fortress of Solitude sinks into the ground (part of Clark's punishment for using up the last of Jor-El's energy). Then, we are treated to the same silly ending as Superman 1 - instead of using a "super-amnesia kiss" to make Lois forget his identity, this time Superman feels that Ms Lane's forbidden knowledge is so important, that he uses his "reverse the Earth's rotation to turn back time" trick for that as well. Uh... were we planning on ending every Superman movie this way? Because at the end of S1 they made it pretty darn clear that this type of thing was not allowed, but Supes was doing it anyway because he loves Lois so much. Does Supes do this a lot? When else does he do turn back the clock? When his milk goes sour? When his favorite football team loses?

But the worst part is, it's not very clear just how much was changed from Superman's time trick. Did the entire movie not happen? Because even after turning back the clock, he still feels the need to return to that little cafe up North, and show up that bully who had pushed him around earlier. Okay, if he fought that guy AFTER telling Lois his identity, but he turned back time to before he told Lois, then he basically just beat up some random jerk at a cafe. "I've, uh, been working out." Uh, sure, but... who ARE you?

The important thing to remember here, is that while this is a great way to see a lot of deleted/alternate footage at once, this is NOT neccessarily how the movie would have turned out had Richard Donner completed it back in 1980. Overall, I prefer the Richard Donner cut, or at least I prefer most of the choices made. But the lack of a "clean" cut makes it much harder to watch. So while I'm happy to own a copy, I'm also glad I own the theatrical release as well, because that's the one I'll grab when I'm just in the mood to veg and watch super-beings fight. Still, the Richard Donner cut is a must-have for superfans.

For more info, check these out:

Wikipedia Article

IMDB Superman II Trivia

NeverWinter Nights 2 - First Impressions

Generally I try to avoid buying PC games when they first come out. For one thing, I rarely have a computer that will run the newest games. Also, PC game prices tend to fall a lot more than console games. I can wait a year to buy the newest PS2 game, and it might have gone from $60 down to $40. Or I can wait six months to buy the newest PC game, and it will have gone from $50 to $15.

But I'll make an exception for the NeverWinter Nights series. As a player, I was curious, but I wasn't in a hurry. But as a builder, I simply couldn't wait to see what I was going to be up against this time. I missed out the first time around; I didn't get Itropa up and running until NWN had been out for well over a year. This time I wanted to get in on the ground floor, and hopefully grab a larger player base.

Well, it ain't gonna happen.

The game is beautiful, much prettier than the original NWN. But on my computer, it runs like a molasses-covered slug dragging a cart full of anvils uphill. Which is to say, slow. Now, my computer's no powerhouse, but it more than matches NWN2's minimum specs. I hate it when companies list such bare-bones system specs. Believe me, it might run, sure, but nobody's going to want to play it like this.

The crazy part is that it runs slower than Oblivion. Oblivion, the most graphically-praised piece of eye candy to pop out of hypeville this year. Okay, I can't play either game without turning off nearly everything. But at least with all the candy turned off, Oblivion actually runs at a decent speed. It looks like a PS1 game, but it's playable. But playing NWN2 on my computer feels like I'm playing online, on the laggiest server ever.

The funny part is that the toolset actually works pretty well. I had a lot of fun making the hills go up and down using the new terrain engine. No more aztec-esque tiered hills; now we have actual slopes! And there's so many options. Five minutes in the toolset and I counted dozens of features I'd always wished for when using NWN1's toolset. But it's also a very intimidating program, with lots and lots of windows. Finally I feel justified for splurging on a widescreen monitor.

As for the game itself - I can't comment on that just yet. From the little bit I've been able to stand, it plays like the first one. It's point-and-click turn-based battle; you either like it or you don't. The interface is a bit more streamlined than NWN1's, but it takes getting used to. Most of the time it seems simpler, but occasionally I've had to look all over the place to perform certain actions.

As good as the game is (or seems to be), I still have a few minor gripes.

When it comes to D&D/NWN players, there's two extremes - roleplayers and powergamers. Roleplayers ignore the original campaign and go straight online, because the world just seems empty when it's just you and the computer. They always stay in character, because they play just for the chance to live another life for a while. Powergamers, on the other hand, enjoy getting stuff. Experience points, gold, items; it's all about the rewards. They want to make the richest, most powerful character as quickly as possible, so they can enjoy blasting their way through crowds of enemies.

Like most people, I'm a little bit of both. In my case, sometimes I'm only in the mood to kill things, and other times I'm only in the mood to play pretend with people. Unfortunatly, NWN2 disappointed me as both a powergamer and a roleplayer. Before you read the following, keep in mind that I've not had a chance to play much yet, so I might be missing some options.

Powergamers - No epic levels yet. I'm sure they'll include them in an expansion pack, along with a new campaign that requires high-level characters. They probably felt there just wasn't any need for epic levels yet. But even so, why not include them for the modders who want to build more epic worlds? It feels like they left it out specifically so that we'd have a reason to buy the next expansion. Over on GameFAQs.com, there's a FAQ listing all the feats that can be given to a character using a certain cheat. I notice that list includes epic feats. So it seems they have been programmed, just locked out.

Call me a munchkin if you want, but when I'm in a hack-n-slash mood, life begins at 20. With all the new feats and classes, sometimes there just isn't enough room in a 20-level career to build the exact character you want. For instance, I'd love to build the ultimate two-weapon swordsman. Let's see... I'd make him a Fighter/Duelist/Weapon Master... In addition to the feats required for the two Prestige classes (WM alone takes several), I'd also like Weapon Finesse, Two-Weapon Fighting, Improved Two-Weapon Fighting, Greater Two Weapon Fighting, Two Weapon Defense, Greater Two Weapon Defense, Greater Weapon Focus, Superior Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, Greater Weapon Specialization, Improved Parry (assuming Parry isn't worthless this time around), Power Attack, Cleave, Great Cleave, Improved Critical, Power Critical, possibly Exotic weapons depending on my weapon(s) of choice...

Actually, this would be hard to do even with 40 levels. But on NWN1, sometimes I enjoy playing with leveler mods, to see what sort of high-level monstrocities I can make. One of my favorites is the dual-kukri-weilding Weapon Master. With a pair of keen kukris, she crits on nearly every other hit. And she's hitting so many times per round, there's at least two crits per round. Once she gets the Devastating Critical feat, most battles don't take long.

Oh well, if all I cared about was high levels, I'd play Everquest. I actually have more gripes about the Roleplay side at the moment. I love the new character creation system - you have a lot more options when it comes to designing your character's face. But there's fewer hair color options than before. I have a thing for redheads, and there just isn't a good shade of red in there. It's a little thing, but I really get into my characters, and I like for them to look just right.

I also don't like that when you remove all your armor/clothing, you're still wearing a full medieval outfit. Again, not a big gripe, I just prefer a naked character look naked (well, in their underwear, anyway). You could be wearing some sort of Barbarian clothing - the kind of caveman bikini you'd see in a Conan movie - then you take it off, and underneath it you're wearing an outfit with full length leggings and sleeves. The developers probably figured that the only people who'd want to see skin are the ones using the game for cybersex. Well, they're wrong; I come across innocent roleplay uses all the time. When you RP enough, all kinds of situations happen sooner or later. But as I said, that's a minor gripe - I can always find an outfit that looks like underwear, and put it on the quickslot.

This time around, the developers hyped up the game's branching storyline, the importance of your alignment and the alignments of your companions, and how your choices affect the game's story. In other words, it's like the Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic games. While it was cool playing through the KotORs twice, once for light side and once for dark, I don't feel the same about the NWN series. With NWN, once you play through the original campaign, you go and download another module to play through. So I really don't need multiple endings. Give me one really well-written ending instead. Besides, the KotORs needed replay value, since they didn't have any content beyond the main story. The NWN games offer unlimited worlds, so I'd rather they have put that energy into other parts of the game.

Besides, who's the target audience? The powergamers don't care about the plot, and the role-players are going to skip the original campaign and go straight for the online servers. Keep in mind, however, this is coming from someone who never even finished any of the campaigns that came with NWN1 or its expansions. So your mileage may vary.

A couple of more gripes about the interface - I really miss being able to right-click things and getting lots of options. It was fast and intuitive. Also, I don't care for the new inventory system. I miss NWN1's dynamic icons. NWN2's icons look so generic.

I know that overall, my first impression seems kind of negative. But really, I like the game. Once I get a computer that will run it, I'm sure I'll play the hell out of it. But do I really want to buy a whole computer for one game? Well, I've done it before, and I might do it again. But it's going to be a while. Until then, its going to gather dust on my shelf, next to its arch-enemy, Oblivion.

Almost Famous

Here's my grandfather (mother's side) on the IMDB. Whoever can link him to Kevin Bacon in the fewest steps, wins an imaginary prize.

The Grudge 2

Either you liked the first Grudge, or you didn't. I loved it; it was the first movie to actually scare me in a long time. It had a lot of material that could either be seen as scary or goofy, depending on how you watch it: Were you in the right mood, did you give it your full attention, did you turn the lights off, etc. After all, I'm not usually afraid of naked Japanese boys who meow. But the Grudge makes it work.

But the meowing boy isn't the star of the show. The Grudge, along with the Ring, introduced American audiences to the creature a friend of mine calls the "Shaky Girl" (or was that "Jerky Girl"? Either one works). The Shaky Girl is an undead girl (or young woman), with long hair that covers her entire face, who walks in an unnatural jerky style slowly but inexorably towards her victim. She can sometimes be spotted climbing down town the stairs, bending her arms and legs in inhuman ways in the process. Her chief weapon is simply fear - in fact, audiences are never shown exactly how she kills her victims, and that absence of knowledge makes her even more frightening. In addition to the Ring and the Grudge, the Shaky Girl has also been seen in the video game Fear, the movie Stay Alive (briefly), half a dozen trailers for horror movies coming out next year, and about 100 Japanese horror flicks that haven't been remade here yet. Eventually she'll be so commonplace that she won't be any scarier than Freddy, Jaws, or King Kong. But until then, I'm enjoying every one of her fifteen minutes.

Anyway, the Grudge 2 picks up right where the last one left off. It doesn't add much new to the plot, except to give a little bit of history to the ghost. I'd say there's a little less exposition this time, and a few more scare scenes. Unfortunately, the scares are pretty much the same - same shaky girl, same little boy. At times it felt like I was just watching deleted scenes from the first movie. But so? I liked the first movie enough to watch it over and over, so the "extra footage" is more than welcome.

The first Grudge was a little hard to follow for a couple of my friends, because it went back and forth in time. This one does the same, but since one time period is in America and the other is in Japan, it's a lot easier to keep them separate. The movie is pretty easy to sum up: Lots of people die. In fact,

*** Spoiler Space ***

*** Spoiler Space ***

*** Spoiler Space ***

*** Spoiler Space ***

...I'm pretty sure that every character who has a speaking role is dead by the end of the movie. Okay, there was one crazy guy playing peek-a-boo on a bus who lived, but he was just a background character. So don't expect a Freddy-esque "maybe if we bury her bones on holy ground she can't come back" type of ending. It's just two hours of people getting killed in delightfully scary (but generally bloodless) ways. ...And I love it.

ESRB and Oblivion

Just google "ESRB Oblivion" and you'll see what I'm about to rant about. To recap: Someone made a skin for "Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion", which allows you to play as a topless woman. As a result, the ESRB (Game Ratings Board) re-rated the game, changing it from "Teen" to "Mature". The ESRB has since claimed that the re-rate was not only for the nudity, but also because the ESRB "just now noticed" some gore they hadn't seen before. Whatever the explanation, the little ratings square on the Oblivion box now says "nudity" in the description.

We could spend days arguing whether or not seeing breasts could damage a child's mind. I'm generally pro-nudity, as long as it's not sexual nudity. Heck, as I write this, I've got Halsman/Dali's "In Voluptate Mors" as my desktop. Besides, Oblivion was already rated "Teen", and I seriously doubt there are many teens who've never seen a breast.

But that's not the point. The Ratings Boards have started basing their ratings not just on the content included with the game, but also on fan-created content that can be downloaded. This is flat-out ridiculous. First off, for any game that uses skins, players can make nude patches. I doubt there's a single first-person-shooter out there that doesn't have nude skins available for it. But it doesn't stop there. There are many games where skins/mods weren't even intended, but players found ways to replace character models with nudity.

Right now I'm glancing at my own shelves, and in just a few seconds I've already counted 5 "Teen" rated games that have nude patches available online. If the ESRB is going to rate games based on user-made content, then they'll have to start giving EVERY game an "M" rating. And if every game has the same rating, then of course the ratings system is useless.

The ESRB will notice this eventually. If they use Oblivion as an example, then they'll start looking at the downloads available for all the games they rate. Sooner or later they'll notice that every game is getting a "Mature" rating. (And if not, then they're just not Googling hard enough.) My fear is that they'll try to solve the wrong problem... instead of revising the ratings system, they'll try to outlaw the mods.

Lady in the Water

To sum up, it's pretty good. Not Shymalan's best, but not his worst either. I liked it better than "The Village" and "Signs", but not as much as "The Sixth Sense" and "Unbreakable".

The reason I put the summary first, is because it's hard to explain this movie without spoilers. Okay, that goes for a lot of Shyamalan's stuff. But while most of his movies have a twist in the last five minutes, this one has its twists throughout. Or rather, it doesn't have any big twists a la "Sixth Sense", but the overall plot is the movie's secret. This is why most of the trailers only show footage from the first five minutes. So anyway, if you haven't seen it, and still intend to, you can stop reading now.

There is a fine line between silly and artsy. For instance, my favorite horror movie is "The Grudge". Normally I'm not afraid of naked Japanese boys who meow; but The Grudge had the right direction, mood, lighting, pace, etc, and it made it work. However, not everyone was able to get "into" the movie to the same degree, and the result is that it either comes off silly or scary, no in-between. If you don't watch The Grudge in the right mindset - you gotta turn off the lights, give it your full attention, etc - then you're going to giggle a lot more than you jump. One of my friends said The Grudge was one of the stupidest movies she'd ever seen; later I found out she watched it with her talkative grandmother and fast-forwarded through the "boring" parts.

Lady In The Water is the same way. If I were to tell you the story straight out, you'd think I was describing an animated Disney film. It is a movie about a fairy tale, a bedtime story that turns out to be based in reality. The characters even identify themselves with characters in the fairy tale, to the point that the movie even makes some in-jokes about how stories are written. Think "Wes Craven's New Nightmare". And these were my favorite parts of the movie. The writer in me loves jokes about dialogue and exposition.

The main character, Cleveland (played by Paul Giamatti), plays his part like a young Richard Dreyfus in "Jaws". He was very entertaining to watch, except for the fact that Cleveland has a stuttering problem. But that's just one of my little pet peeves; I never could stand watching Porky Pig cartoons either. Shyamalan himself has a fairly large role in this one, and he does a good job.
The movie starts out quickly. I was expecting Cleveland to ponder the mysterious swimmer for half the movie before he ever saw her, but 10 minutes into the movie they're already on speaking terms. It was a bit unbelievable how quickly Cleveland accepted he was in a supernatural situation, and it was even stranger how everyone he told immediately believed him as well. But that's nitpicky, and we're all tired of seeing the same old "nobody believes the hero" crap movies have been re-hashing since 1958's "The Blob".

It's a very clean movie. Not much cursing (actually I don't remember any at all, but better safe than sorry), no nudity, very little blood. There are a couple of scenes that will scare the young'uns, but it's definitely not a horror movie. I'm actually a bit peeved at the cleanliness... I consider myself neither pervert nor prude, but I hate it when movies are cut for ratings purposes, rather than for art's sake. The "Lady" has several nude scenes that are shot from some very clever camera angles, but I'll never know if that was for art's sake, or to keep the PG-13 rating. I'll give it the benefit of the doubt and go with art, but only because of an inside joke they make about it later.

Lady in the Water is not very deep, no pun intended. It's interesting, but not that memorable. I'm glad I saw it, but I'm also glad I saw it as a matinee.

Had a Letter Printed in KODT

Nothing big here...

I have a subscription to Knights of the Dinner Table, but I don't actually read it every month. Since I like it mostly for the strips, I don't bother until I have several issues to read in a row, so it lasts longer. The strip is generally an ongoing story, and reading a single issue by itself just doesn't go anywhere.

So typically, I'll let the issues stack up somewhere for a few months, then take them with me on a long car trip or something. Which is what we did yesterday - we took an overnight trip to Evansville, Indiana. KJ got to go gambling, and this morning we went to a really nice zoo. The Mesker Park Zoo, to be exact. It's a great place; I highly recommend it. It's part park, part zoo, and it lets you get a lot closer to the animals than most zoos I've been to.

Anyway, back to KODT... So here it is, mid-July, and I just now notice that they printed a letter of mine in the march issue. I made a KODT reference in my Itropa mod, and I couldn't resist sending them a pic. From Knights of the Dinner Table, Issue 113 (March '06), page 8:

Here's a better view of the picture I sent them:

Evil Dead 2 at the Belcourt Theater

Okay, so I've seen Evil Dead 2 more than enough times, and it's probably my favorite campy horror film. But last night I got to see it the way it should be seen: On a theater screen full of geeks, all laughing and making fun of it. At the Belcourt Theater in downtown Nashville, they have late showings of cult classics. This was my first visit, but I plan to go back many, many times in the future. People dressed up, people talked back to the screen... It's almost like Rocky Horror, only with a different movie each week.

If you haven't seen Evil Dead 2, I'm not going to waste my time explaining the "plot", only to say that it's one of the funniest, silliest, over-the-top low-budget horror movies ever made. It's one of those movies you are expected to have seen if you want to be considered hip on cult film. And therefore, if you haven't seen it before, you aren't likely to now either, you heathen. Just go back to your non-creative, uninspired life, and watch whichever insipid drama you find the least exciting; after all, excessive smiling causes wrinkles.

Besides, the purpose of this blog entry is not to praise the movie - it doesn't need my help. The theater is the real star. Those of you who live around here: if you're one of "my" crowd - the sci-fi/horror buffs who can quote hundreds of movie lines, the outcasts who didn't date much in high school yet had twice as much fun as popular kids, the collectors who display Star Wars toys the way some people display fine china, then this theater was made for you.

A Scanner Darkly

It's hard to explain this movie, especially without spoilers. There's just no way I can do it justice. It's artsy and experimental; on one hand it's eye-candy, on another it's social commentary. I keep wanting to compare it to Sin City, even though they're absolutely nothing alike.

So let's start with the reviews. When I first read about A Scanner Darkly, I was afraid that I wouldn't like the plot. Having seen similar reviews of Sin City, I prepared myself for a very pretty movie with plenty to see, but nothing I wanted to remember. Actually, the reviews kind of made it sound like an animated Dazed and Confused, one of my least favorite movies of all time.

Scanner is sci-fi, in that it takes place in the near future, and has some advanced technology. I'm really not sure why this is neccessary. The "Scanners" - Big Brother types who keep tabs on drug addicts - wear these bizzare high-tech constantly-morphing outfits to hide their true identities. Neat concept, but in the end they could have accomplished the same thing just by wearing any all-over concealing costume. I don't want my tax dollars going toward these 100-million-dollar suits when they could accomplish the same thing with a parka and a Darth Vader mask. It's not like they were disguising themselves as specific other people; they were disguising themselves as "every man".

The plot revolves around a futuristic drug, (again, it's nothing so fantastic that it had to be sci-fi), the people who are doing this drug, and the people who are trying to arrest the users. The movie's highlights are actually the drug-induced ramblings of the main characters... I guess in that respect, it is like Dazed and Conused, only this time the conversations are actually funny. It's the perfect amount of humor, too. Just enough to keep you entertained, but not enough to make drug use actually look inviting. It's a great balance - the users are the heroes of the movie, but it still manages to deliver a strong anti-drug message. At least to those of us who were paying attention.

Update: Btw, you can watch the first 24 minutes of the movie here:
http://media.filmforce.ign.com/media/670/670907/vids_1.html

Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest

In a word: Wheeeeeeee!

Honestly, I never expected them to make a Pirates sequel. I just felt that it was the perfect self-contained movie, and I while I LOVED the first one, I really didn't feel I needed to know what happened to the characters next. For a while I had heard they were making a prequel, which sounded sort of boring to me - I kept thinking of the Mummy/Scorpion King movies. Besides, the original Pirates is such comic gold, such a magic movie. Even if you have the best writers, directors, and actors in Hollywood, luck is still a major factor in whether your movie is a hit. I don't mean to dismiss anyone's hard work, I'm just saying that even the best-planned projects can sink under their own weight without a little luck. And so my worries about Pirates 2 were quite justified.

So how did it go? Well, for the first half of the movie, I was still a bit worried. The original Pirates had something fun every minute. But for the first 45 minutes, Dead Man's Chest only had something fun every 5 minutes or so. I was still enjoying the movie, happy to see these characters again, but I was worried that it was never really going to take off. I thought the way they kept bringing the characters back together was a bit contrived, and it seemed like a lot of useless setup unless there was going to be a huge payoff.

After an hour into the movie, I was hooked. The magic was back: humor, creative action scenes, over-the-top swordplay and lots of eye candy. I was completely entertained right up until the end. By the way, like Pirates 1, make sure you stay through the end of the credits, there's another cute little tag.

In Short, if you liked the first one, you'll like this one. I don't have to tell you to go see it; fans of the first will have seen it by now anyway. But if you're riding the fence, go ahead and buy a ticket, I don't think you'll regret it.

Now... about the ending. (Possible spoiler alert)

S

P

O

I

L

E

R



S

P

A

C

E


I didn't know it was going to be a two-parter. I'm not quite sure how I missed that - usually I pay attention to this stuff. I had heard that a third movie was already being planned, but I didn't know it was part 2 of this movie. The sudden cliffhanger ending annoyed me. Generally speaking, even when it's part 2 of a trilogy, a movie still has a definite beginning, middle, and end. In "Empire Strikes Back", the climax was the fight between Luke & Darth. In "Back To The Future 2", even though 2 & 3 were being filmed at the same time, they solved the movie's main plot point (the almanac screwing up the timeline) before introducing the cliffhanger (Doc Brown getting trapped in the past). Okay, there's exceptions... Kill Bill, for instance... but in Kill Bill, "Volume 1" was in the damn title!

But to me, Pirates 2 felt like it stopped in the middle. Yes, there is a climax when Jack encounters the (spoiler), and there is a little surprise right before the credits. But it still felt like they could have said "To Be Continued" at any point, and it would have been the same. I guess that's the mark of a successful movie, that it left me wanting more, and it's even better that we know more is coming. But I'd rather they have trimmed the first 45 minutes a little more (like have Elizabeth leave WITH Will, rather than spend so much time getting her back into his arms) , and made it one big long movie. I mean, if audiences can survive 3 hours of LOTR or Titanic, surely we can handle an extra hour of Pirates.

The other thing that annoys me: The first movie showed off the special effects of the dead people. The sequel showed off the special effects of the fish people. With this one cut in half, it looks like the third one will also be about the fish people... Come on, for a third movie, I want to see all-new bad guys! Keep in mind this is being said without really knowing anything about the third movie. I'm hoping I'm surprised.