... if you're the Manson family that is. When I saw this flick in the theaters it reminded me of a cross between "Duel in the Sun", "Bad Day at Black Rock" and "Double Indemnity" if they were up all night doing crystal meth in the town of Superior, Arizona. Based on John Ridley's 1997 debut novel entitled "Stray Dogs" - the screenplay follows Bobby Cooper as he lies, cheats, swindles, cons and plays members of a small town in order to get out and pay off a debt to a Russian Las Vegas mob boss as he propels himself down a twisted spiral of deceit and murder. Only trouble is, the town is playing him right back. This western noir fare feels like Jim Thompson and Elmore Leonard ran into each other really hard and waxed creative with heatstroke and concussions. "U-Turn" the film is really a masterful work, but the screenplay is pretty bare bones and so strinkingly resembles the novel that the money is better put into Ridley's superbly written book. The high points of "U-Turn" are contained in it's amazing visuals and eccentric performances by actors Sean Penn, Nick Nolte and Jennifer Lopez- and none of that is hinted on or felt in the screenplay. The film is great, the novel is particularly awesome, but the screenplay just feels excessive. The introduction by Oliver Stone is particularly insightful if you want an intelligent look at how a film evolves from script through production to finished product - but all that is is basically a travelogue of the film. John Ridley's foreword feels like he took the money and ran, even though he avoids throwing harsh words Stone's way for tweaking the ending and making Ridley postpone the release date of "Stray Dogs" to come after the film so the audience will be surprised at plot twists. If you're a die-hard "U-Turn" fan it's a must have ... but how many of those can there be out there?

Not so good. This is the second book in Pearson's Lou Boldt series and definately not the best. I found the plot (a rogue veterinarian harvesting human organs) to be a tad unbelievable and uninteresting, and the coincidence of one of the victims being the best friend of one of the main characters (a detective) bordering on the ridiculous. That being said, the book is a quick read, with plenty of action and very well researched details (Pearson is always good at that). Overall, I would say that this book is for Pearson junkies only.

I generally enjoy Ridley Pearson's books but I have to say that I found The Angel Maker more than a little unpleasant. There is, in truth, a grim fascination with the story, but "grim" is the opperative word. I was never able to escape, while reading this, the oppressive feeling that Pearson was playing an ugly joke on the reader. To use murdering street kids for their organs as a premise for a plot, to make clear who the villain is, and to make the tension of the story revolve around saving one particular potential victim in time, results in an unsatisfactory blend of classic melodrama and contemporary urban myth. I read it, but I didn't like it. Part of the problem, for me, is that I think using kids as victims in crime drama is a cheap appeal for emotion. While kids frequently are the victim of vicious crimes, they are more likely to be victimized by their own family than anonymous psychos and evil doctors.

While there is a story here that many will find sufficiently interesting, I cannot recommend it.

Dr. Tegg and his cohorts want to save lives as they do organ trasnplants, the problem is Dr. Tegg is a Vet and not a physician qualified to do the work. Dr. Tegg also takes organs from donors that remain alive. Three street walkers are found dead, this creates a Police investigation.

The Police Psycholigist has a friend who has disappeared. The whole story surrounds locating this friend before she too dies. My question through out the book is...do they get there in time?

This is a very good thriller and a must read for mystery fans, even the ending leaves us hanging does Sharon live?

Pearson Ridley is a good author and I look forward to reading some of his other Novels.