Something old, something new

First up, I read something NOT written by Stephen King (the peasants rejoice). Tami Hoag's Guilty as Sin was a pretty solid detective thriller. In a small rural town a little boy is abducted, and every lead only ends in more questions. When hope is fading, and while a suspect with mounting evidence sits in jail, the boy is miraculously returned in the middle of the night. However, he refuses to speak, and offers no clues as to who his captor was or how he was returned. The case then takes a hellish turn for the worse when, in a neighboring town, another boy is abducted (while the prime suspect is still in the clink). There are twists and turns aplenty, and while this wasn't the most incredible book I've read (it took awhile to really get hooked into the story), it was an interesting diversion and worth a look from the library.

Next, we have an entry that became an instant classic in the eyes of our son. Mel Brooks' Spaceballs has been revisited. It is just as tacky, just as cheezy, and just as funny as I remember. The bulk of the parody is in the Star Wars/Star Trek vein, with some minor tips to The Wizard of Oz and Planet of the Apes thrown in for good measure. Mr. Brooks knows how to make a movie that appeals to the 11-year-old boy in all of us. If you're unabashedly childish, I can't recommend this one enough!

A bit of catch-up...

I moved. I moved to another country. That's the short story. That's the long journey between posts. Over the course of the move I did manage a fair amount of reading and such, but had limited internet access with which to share. Now, in this hyper-over-extended post, I will attempt the daring feat of giving each bit a shoddy token review for your reading enjoyment.

Let's begin.

Following a trip to the beach, and in order to escape a looming storm, we ducked into the local theater with the kids to take in a screening of Cloudy With A Chance Of Meatballs. (the things I do for you guys) I admit to not having the highest of expectations for it, but I'm delighted to be corrected. It was highly entertaining, the dialog was snappy, and it was often funny. How good was it? I say the following with the utmost sincerity. Mr. T, yes, that Mr. T voices one of the characters, and was expertly cast! It was an honest to goodness treat to hear him do something other than a blatant caricature of himself. They wisely left phrase such as "I pity the fool" out of it. It's an entertaining film and loads of fun for the whole family. I'd recommend it.

In The Good Guy, we find a reasonably standard-issue crime thriller, mixed with a dab of conspiracy theory. It made for a pretty quick read, sets a pretty decent hook, and has some good tense moments. The basic plot is, an average Joe mason inadvertently ends up in the middle of a contract killing negotiation. His conscience compels him to take action to try and save the potential target. The bad guy is detestably bad and helped out by an amazing support system, and the result is a pretty good and non-stop chase to the finish. Will the good guy save the fair damsel? Why's she wanted dead in the first place? What sort of skeletons do they have in their respective closets? And how's the bad guy so effectively tracking them? All of these questions are answered in due time.

Michael Crichton's State of Fear is actually two books in one. Part of it is a well written and thrilling tale of corporate espionage and intrigue, and this part is pretty good and often exciting. The other part is Crichton's soap box platform for why global warming is a myth, complete with more charts and bibliography references than any book of fiction before or since. This part reads just like it sounds, like some dude's sermon on his own belief system and why those other guys are wrong. Were these two separate books, that'd be just fine. Combined, and you get a book where the action gets ta flowin' and things are movin' and shakin' and excitement's building and and... ...some dude goes off on a rant about the "real" data behind global warming being made up and so on and so forth and all that excitement gets shot to hell. To be honest, I'm not a climate expert, and for all I know he could be on to something, but I don't care to read it in my supposed book of exciting fiction. I'd no sooner turn to The Da Vinci Code for religious guidance. But there ya have it. The story parts are good, the soap box parts break the rhythm and take away from that. Your mileage may vary.

I've been finding myself reading a lot of Stephen King lately. I tend to find his stuff pretty good, and in The Girl Who Loved Tom Gordon, that trend continues.

This is the story of a little girl who gets lost in the woods on a family hiking trip, separated from her mother and brother, and who, through a series of highly unfortunate choices, chooses a path that consistently takes her farther and farther away from help. Of course, this being Stephen King, there's more to it than that and it's a struggle between the need to see the little girl through to the end versus the fear of finding out what's going to be her final undoing. It's a well-written story and builds slowly over the course of the book to its conclusion. I'd recommend this one to folks if you enjoy some good suspense.

As previously mentioned, I've been reading a lot of Stephen King's stuff. Just After Sunset is a collection of short stories he's written over the years (of which he's released other collections, for example, Four Past Midnight, Skeleton Crew, etc.). There's a little something in this collection for everybody, I'd imagine. The stories take place at a variety of different locations, the themes vary widely, as do the levels of suspense and/or horror. It's a fun collection of short reads, often just right for a complete story in the evening before turning in for the night, plus it's an interesting exercise to see the many ideas this man experiments with in his writing endeavors. He really has an extraordinary imagination.

Did I mention I've been reading Stephen King's stuff lately?

Good.

The Colorado Kid is part of a collection of whodunit mystery novels churned out as Hard Case Crime stories. This one's less "evil clowns" and "alien infiltration" and more of a detective story. In that regard, it's not your typical King story, but he takes to the challenge and the result is a pretty good read. It's also, as part of this line of books, a small novel of the type one would pick up on the way through the airport to kill time on a flight. The basic plot synopsis is, a man is found on a beach one morning by a couple of joggers, he's dead, and nobody can figure out why or how he came to be there of all places. It's a good read and I'd recommend it.

At the end of The Colorado Kid, I read a quick synopsis of The Confession, by Domenic Stansberry, and was sufficiently intrigued to seek it out and read it as well. Story-wise, it was in a similar vein. A man is being questioned following the death-by-strangulation of his mistress, with his tie. Other suspicious characters enter the story, each with their own motives for such a crime, plus, this murder seems to fit in with a string of others that haven't yet been linked together. Also, our main character has a history of blackouts, so is he perhaps the guy after all?! The pacing and setup are pretty good, and combined with the small novel size, this makes for a pretty quick and entertaining read. I'd recommend it.

The self-titled album 3 Doors Down by the band of the same name is pretty good. The radio hits are good of course, but as was evident on Away From The Sun, the rest of it was pretty solid as well. If you're liking what you hear on the radio, I'd recommend checking out the full album. They don't seem to phone it in.

Dreamcatcher

Some people would've taken some time off, perhaps traveled to a tropical beach and had drinks served in coconuts, recovering, after being swiped by a mini-van and hospitalized with severe injuries. Stephen King wrote Dreamcatcher, a book in which one of the main characters suffers a similar fate.

Not only is the story very involved, but also very lengthy. Quite significant productivity considering the circumstances!

So, how'd he do?

Once again, in the Stephen King universe, nothing good happens to friends in groups of 4. Four childhood friends grow up and tap in to parts of their shared past to deal with some horrifying problems in their present. The four are bound together by a 5th mentally challenged kid who, though outwardly handicapped is in fact quite special and quite powerful in his own right. So, as grown-ups the 4 friends go on an annual hunting trip in a remote part of Maine. Some mysterious lights in the sky and a couple of odd stray hunters later, and the plot takes off on a race that potentially determines the fate of the entire planet. The plot, pacing, and imagery are quite good, and despite the length, it's a pretty quick read as a result. If you are generally a fan of Stephen King or the horror genre, you'll probably enjoy this one. I'd recommend it.

Dereliction of Duty

Got distracted a bit with holiday time, packing some stuff up, work, etc. About time to catch up on some things here...

Let's start out with Up, the latest offering from Pixar. The concept seems iffy, but wow, the execution...absolutely brilliant. The idea of a kid who grows up and grows old with this far-flung dream about flying to South America in search of a mythical place doesn't seem like much more than a short book for small children, but in the hands of the folks at Pixar, this movie has more charm, more poignant moments, adventure, humor, and a better story than probably 99% of the films that'll come out this year. Hopefully it'll get a nod for best picture. If not, there's no justice in the world. Go see this one whether you have kids to take or not. You won't regret it.

From Up to a film more decidedly for adults only, we have Wedding Crashers. This flick follows the exploits of two single guys who, thanks to connections to pertinent information, are extremely successful at crashing weddings posing as friends of the family and such, the idea being, of course, to party, partake of some tasty food, and score with attractive and (thanks to the wedding atmosphere) emotionally susceptible women. Their planning and execution for said events is impeccable, and they are really living it up. Then, disaster strikes in the form of Wilson's character falling for one the objects of his desire. Vaughn, of course, realizes that this upsets the entire balance of their scam and their lives, and is conflicted by his desire to bail on the situation, and his duty to have his friend's back. The result is often funny and way over the top (sometimes to the point of uncomfortable). Overall, I had found it quite funny and enjoyable. If you enjoy a good raunchy comedy, I'd highly recommend it.

The sequel, Fantastic 4: Rise of the Silver Surfer was pretty decent as well. While neither of the F4 movies were in the spectacular range (Batman Begins, Ironman), they do pretty well. This one sees the introduction of the mysterious Silver Surfer, an entity of unknown intent who is initially cruising around causing climate disturbance and digging holes, but nobody is sure why. Eventually Dr. Doom gets back into the mix, and we learn that not only is astronomy WAY more advanced in the F4 universe, but also that, as is typical, the surfer dude is there to, well, destroy the planet (or, is it really that simple???). So, the heroes do their duty as you'd expect, and the overall plot clicks along nicely, pretty decent acting, good action, etc. The ending (after they've saved the planet) is some serious cheeze, so, you've been warned about that, but otherwise, not a bad entry in the Marvel universe. I've heard there are rumors of a F4 "reboot" from the folks at Fox, and while the first two installments might not have been perfection, hopefully somebody there will see the light and just really work on making a 3rd movie that kicks butt. Rehashing the same story lines with a new batch of characters this soon??? Let's hope not. As for this one, if you enjoy decent comic book hero movies, give this one a rent!

This is the second straight book I got part-way into and just didn't care enough to finish. Buyology by Martin Lindstrom is all about the science behind advertising, and how corporations are starting to use studies into the actual workings of the human brain (we're talking MRI studies and such) to better target the wants of the consumer base. There are certainly some interesting bits to be had, for example, warning labels on cigarettes do nothing in the way of stopping smokers, and in fact stimulate the same areas of the brain that make the smokers want those smokes. But, guess I just wasn't in the frame of mind to really get into this.

Double feature

We decided to grab a couple of family-friendly flicks for the evening, and diving right in, we started off with Madagascar: Escape 2 Africa. The kids had pretty solid enjoyment, and really here, that's what it's all about, but overall I found it largely forgettable.

It has some funny moments here and there, but my impression was of a sequel made to cash in on the good will of the first movie. The basic plot was sketched out on a napkin and didn't get too much deeper from there.

So, if you have children, it's probably worth renting. If you're a kid in an adult's body (like myself), you're not missing anything too exciting here.

Where Madagascar 2 as a family movie had laughs for the kids, City of Ember didn't have laughs for anybody. This is a decidedly more serious movie and it does a pretty fair job of ratcheting up the tension as well.

The movie is based on a young adults book of the same name by Jeanne Duprau. The plot synopsis is, the Builders create a self-sustaining underground city in which humanity can continue to survive what is referenced as the "end of the world." They seal instructions to leave the city at a much later date into a time capsule which is to be passed from mayor to mayor for the next 200 years, at which point it'll open, revealing the method by which the inhabitants can find their way to the surface. It's a flawless plan that hits a snag when one of the mayors croaks in an untimely fashion and the time capsule is misplaced and forgotten about. As a result, the community we walk into is Ember going on some 250 years or so, beyond original design specs and taxing food supplies, power supplies, and other infrastructure. Will our young heroes piece together the pieces of the puzzle to save the people of Ember?!

It's a decent movie, and it was worth a rental, though I'm not disappointed I didn't see it in theaters. The CGI is pretty cheezy in a few spots which is quite noticeable in this day and age, but otherwise the filming, the setting, and the mood were very well done. It really conveys the feeling of a people who aren't just in denial about their predicament, but who genuinely aren't sure what to do anyway. The one thing I found lacking was some additional detail which I hope will be provided in the book (I'll have to give that a read). I have no idea if I'll find answers there or not, but generally books tend to do one better than their corresponding movies.

At any rate, it's not a bad family flick and it's relatively kid-safe, though there are some moments of peril. If in doubt, screen it first.

Bad (book about) Science

I gave Bad Science by Ben Goldacre the old college try. I wanted to like this book, as the promise is quite interesting. That is, the discussion of the myriad of bad surveys and data used to sell untold amounts of goods to the consumer public. The inner secrets of the data behind miracle weight-loss pills, exercise gadgets that promise fabulous results, and homeopathic remedy effectiveness all laid bare, their sciencey underpinnings meticulously analyzed so that we, the reader, can learn to see through their tricks and ask the right questions to become better and more informed consumers.

It sounds great. I made it a few chapters in and just couldn't bring myself to finish.

The problem for me was the tone the author set. It's not enough to discuss the pseudo-science behind a lot of these ideas. The author seemingly had bought into his own awesomeness, and the writing reflects it. Every example read as "wow, would you get a load of these idiots." I found this negative tone rather unappealing, and wish he could've just stuck to the science. Others seem to have liked it though, your mileage may vary.

Eau de Toilette

Perfume, subtitled The Story of a Murderer, by Patrick Süskind is quite the read. It's a unique and original story of the life of a man told with exquisite detail, considering the subject matter.

Really, how good could you describe a particular scent to somebody? It's a challenge indeed, and Süskind's efforts of basing an entire story around just such descriptions is impressive.

The tale follows the life of Jean-Baptiste Grenouille, born into complete and utter wretchedness, as a person who quite literally has no scent of his own, but who is paradoxically born with, also quite literally, the world's finest nose. Against absolutely all odds, he grows into the life of a journeyman perfumer on his own mission to create the world's greatest perfume. Oh, and one more thing, people are murdered.

The story is thoroughly absorbing, suspenseful and beautifully written. It's not a murder mystery per se, as there really isn't any mystery to the reader, but the trials and travails of anti-hero Grenouille make for an enthralling read.

Stardust

Stardust is a fantasy fairy tale that rather defies description. As a quick disclaimer, I knew next to nothing about it before watching it. Whether it was based on a book of some sort, I don't know, but it was largely original to me, and to good effect!

The film is often light-hearted, funny, and clever. It centers around inhabitants from the village of Wall and mysterious folk from the nearby fantasy realm on the other side of the wall for which the village is named. A young lad from the former, smitten with an object of his desire, sets off into the latter to fetch a fallen star in order to prove his love. An epic journey ensues involving an alternately hot and ugly Michelle Pfeiffer (it takes a LOT of makeup to render her unattractive, but they do succeed), and one fruity pirate played by De Niro.

I know that's a crap description, but really, just go rent it. It's really good, and you'll likely enjoy it!

Eagle Eye

Good action flick. Gotta hand it to Shia, the dude's been busy. We find him yet again on the silver screen, this time in the techno-thriller Eagle Eye. This film has undercurrents of both 1984 and Terminator running through it as a cautionary tale about big brother and the use of technology as a resource for crime control.

Let's see...things you've probably gathered from the trailer or the back of the video...

Shia's character is a relatively unassuming underachiever, doggy-paddling through life while others swim past him. He comes home one evening to find out he's been set up, in a big way, as a terrorist suspect. He's brought before Billy Bob Thornton who, for this movie (like almost all others) plays the part of Billy Bob Thornton giving a dramatic reading of his character's lines. Seriously, outside of Sling Blade, the dude's character is generally the same, perhaps modulating levels of lewdity. I digress... Shia's in big trouble, but, thanks to a mysterious caller who has tapped into and controls pretty much everything (electronic road signs, security cameras, phones, etc.), he is aided in his escape. Monaghan's character is similarly "recruited" by this mysterious phone caller.

So, who is the caller? How do they know so much about our two protagonists? Is the caller working for good or evil?

Some parts of the movie do defy belief, but, overall, it's a good solid thriller. The action is pretty well non-stop. The main mystery is resolved in good dramatic fashion with follow-up back story that explains how it all began. I'd certainly recommend it for a viewing and have to say that, generally speaking, I've been enjoying the characters that Shia's been inhabiting. Good stuff.

Beyond this point, here be spoilers! Arrrrrrr....

Now, in my book, suspending belief seems to come in two flavors at the movies. There is the "stuff that is written into the story that works because it's part of the universe the story is playing out in," and then there's the "huh??? that seems like it was contrived because they wrote themselves into a corner and didn't know how to get out."

This movie has 'em both...the first one, which is minor and mostly me just being a dork. The super-computer is the bad guy. There. I said it. How bad? Well, it decides, based on the founding documents of the US, that it is obligated to take out the ENTIRE executive branch all the way down the line of succession. The manner it chooses to do this is pretty wild. Remember, this is a computer. The goal of these things is to analyze problems and find the best solution. So, this thing architects a tremendously complicated plot when I could think of a dozen ways the computer likely would've REALLY done it. It totally would've made for a much shorter and totally lame movie though...so, like I said, minor quibbling.

The bad one though was when they asked us to believe that this super-evil-computer could automagically break power lines!!! Yes. You read that right. Our heroes met up with another pawn in the computer's evil game under some high voltage power lines. He wasn't supposed to take off running, but he freaked out and did so anyway. The computer then caused two lines to break off and fry the dude. Really. That was, for me, the major bad spot in this film. That took me right out of the story for a bit. I'd still recommend it, but really...can't believe they wrote that in.

REM, Mad Max, & James Lovelock

James Lovelock's career as an independent scientist has long been one of that kook on the fringe that respectable scientists tended to point and sneer at, likely while chanting something like "Nya nya your hypotheses are stooopid!!!" (this is sooo commonplace in science departments around the world, or so the documentary TV series "The Big Bang Theory" would have me believe)

But then, as also seems reasonably common in science, some of his theories and projections started looking none too crazy in retrospect. All of a sudden that kook didn't look so kooky and independent verification started to align itself with the views he'd held all along.

With that background in mind I read The Revenge of Gaia, and here I must say, if there was ever a time for this guy to be off his rocker, I hope this is it. The picture he paints here is of the sort where Mad Max could relocate from the "Action" section to "Documentaries". He refers to himself as a pessimistic optimist, and to that extent he does hold out a small glimmer of hope that humanity could - if they get their act together in very short order - slow down the inevitable misery coming down the pipe from an increasingly hostile planet. Notice I didn't say "keep going on as before," or "fix things," but merely slow down the inevitable problems by acting, quite suddenly, in a seriously environmentally friendly manner. So, we're screwed, but we could potentially slow down the rate at which the final boot falls by acting as one society in the interest of the planet.

Perhaps I'm not as optimistic as Lovelock the pessimist, but a quick look around the world at political events and it's not hard to see that, by these measures, civilization is full-tilt pedal-to-the-metal heading for extinction. Like I said earlier, boy I hope this guy is wrong.

This book touches on topics of agri-business, alternative energies (wind, solar, bio-fuels), nuclear, polar ice, ocean temperatures, and many others with the intent of painting the planet as a living self-regulating system. Lovelock's views of many energy alternatives such as wind and solar are a mixture of too-little-too-late and not a viable and realistic alternative. He provides a strong argument for nuclear power, widespread, and ASAP. He discusses the lip service paid over the years by politicians and governments to environmental goals and how these are ultimately unproductive efforts.

I thought the book was well written, informative, and it compels me to seek out further reading on climate change and alternative energies. As for the science presented, well, I'm not a climatologist nor an expert on any of the other topics discussed. As mentioned earlier, I base part of my analysis on Lovelock's reputation for hitting this stuff fairly close to the mark. Certainly, I can look at the current political climate and see governments jockeying for profits and business opportunities and I feel comfortable agreeing that they do not have the long-term health of humans as a species or the planet at heart. Society is very much on the "what's in it for me and mine" track and we haven't shown the ability as a species to change that.

I would recommend this book. I'd also recommend, as should always be recommended when it comes to science (and any other topic for that matter), doing further research from a myriad of sources to form a more complete picture. For myself anyway, that's the plan. There is a gut feeling, which I will freely admit is terribly UNscientific, but which sits there as I see various things both local and global of humanity's use and misuse of planet Earth. It's not a stretch to imagine Lovelock's vision coming to pass.

The answer is, lots of people.

The question of course is "Who watches the watchmen?" At this point, scores of people have read the book and seen the movie. Perhaps if they asked "Who oversees the watchmen", I wouldn't be wasting your time with this sort of juvenile crap. ;-)

That, of course, is not why you're here. You've been drawn here out of a burning desire to know what I think of this. Or, more likely, through a series of typos and perhaps a defective mouse driver, you're here by accident.

Watchmen is a 12-issue comic book series (or graphic novel for the more uptight). Wikipedia has this to say about it. It's claim to fame is the raw, gritty, problematic nature of its heroes. The costumed folk of Watchmen didn't come flying in here from krypton, or amass a huge fortune and spend their time being playboys by day and underoo-sporting saviors by night, where they're generally normal people with normal issues. No, these people do the costumed bit, but really need a therapist as well. Also they're generally a bunch of normal people who perform vigilante justice as a hobby. For the most part, there aren't any supernatural abilities in this group.

Technically speaking, it's pretty good. The story is quite complex and the imagery is first rate. Character development is generally pretty good as well. And, if you enjoy dark stories with dark endings, there's no shortage of that here. The basic plot synopsis is this. While the US and a still-communist cold war Russia build up tensions toward a nuclear war, costumed heroes seem to be meeting unpleasant ends under questionable circumstances. Gradually Rorschach and others are drawn into the deepening mystery of the costumed hero killer. Will they find answers before they're next? Will Superman save them? Overall, I'd recommend it. It was a good read and I think I'll have to revisit it down the road as I'm sure there are bits I missed the first time through.

Beyond this point you're likely to run into spoilers.

I had a different take on events than another reviewer. Some view Moore's absence of a strong female protagonist as well as some other terrible events as evidence of Moore's hatred of women or some such thing. I didn't see that, and here's why. The setting for the story is an alternate New York from the 50's up through the mid 80's. Feminism and equality movements started gaining traction in the 60's, but off in the fictional realm of superheroes I don't think the women would've been treated with any greater sense of equality than anywhere else, and even had they forced the issue, they would've been marginalized in the press anyway. I think the writing here, though not idealistic, was still realistic.

One of the female heroes is raped by one of the men early on. The guy...the comedian...well, turns out he was a real bastard of the sort who probably had a necklace made of ears during Vietnam. The victim here did and acted in a fashion that was prevalent at the time and sadly still continues today. That of feeling guilt, shame, wondering if she provoked it somehow, etc, etc. The result of this is a daughter who carries on in Mom's crime-fighting footsteps, not discovering until much later the circumstances of her conception. None of this is pleasant for sure, in fact it's every bit as horrendous as rape is, was, and will continue to be. Again, Moore could've left this out of the story instead opting for traipsing through meadows, but it fits with the grim nature of the story and with the seriously flawed characters.

Then there's Dr. Manhattan. The dude is basically energy and isn't bound by the confines of time and space in the manner of people. He knows how events were, are, and will be, and can relocate himself at will to pretty much anywhere, walk through walls, all sorts of cool things. It's amazing more scientists don't subject themselves to lab accidents just for the super powers. One other thing that has happened to him though, his critical fault as viewed through human eyes, is his own loss of humanity. He no longer cares. Period. He has all the emotion of an emotionally repressed Vulcan. His existence is governed by logic, and as such he cares no more (or less) for the human condition than he does for, say, any particular passing electron. As such he often fails to account for basic human necessities, and though he knows when such failures will occur (as in his mind's eye he's already seen them happen), he just doesn't really give them much thought, taking them as a necessary and perhaps unalterable piece of reality.

Ozymandias has a gigantic ego. The guy doesn't seem to tire of the smell of his own farts and just generally is one of the biggest douchebags ever. Huge spoiler here: He kills a lot of people, justified by his own sense of making the world a better place, and at book's end, he has not been brought to justice. And it sucks, cause he really should be. The parting shot with Rorschach's journal offers hope, but it's all imagined hope as this story was never continued (to my knowledge anyway).

Dark story. Good story. If ya like comics, I'd recommend it.

Jealous much?

Yeah. That's right. Opening day. Excellent seats. Packed theater. Ok, so I doubt anybody really cares about how cool I must be to see it BEFORE millions of other people WITH millions of other people.

Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince, of course, tells the continuing tale of J.K. Rowling's monstrous piles of cash and her quest to enslave the planet by quietly assuming world leadership while everybody else is off watching movies at the theater.

It seems to be working.

We joined the throng at our second choice of theaters here because we were turned away at the first. All sold out I'm afraid. While there, we participated in an Oklahoma land rush re-enactment in a mad dash for "seats that don't suck" in order to properly enjoy the movie. We were quick and were justly rewarded for our efforts. To my great surprise, I only ended up shoving a couple of old ladies and a handful of little children. My victory was swift.

Having secured said seats a full 20 minutes before they dimmed the lights, the atmosphere was so euphoric amongst those of us with awesome seats that they could've shown us anything and we wouldn't have cared (Fast and Furious 9: More Faster and Even More Furiouser? Awesome!). Fortunately they showed the right movie though.

It was a good movie. For those keeping up with the books and such, yup, it's also a downer of a movie because of the inevitable ending. If you've read the books recently (which I haven't), sources tell me (ok, my wife) that changes were made. Not necessarily necessary changes either. So, there's that. Otherwise, it was quite engaging, and if you're a Potter fan thus far, this one will quite likely meet with your approval. I'm not an obsessed fan and it was largely due to a planned power outage at home that I was there during the insane opening day, but I'd highly recommend watching it.

Hail to the King, baby!

Stephen King has expended great amounts of energy single-handedly keeping the population of Maine from spiraling out of control by writing creepy stories set in that general area. I've been on hiatus from King's work for awhile, and Duma Key reminded me why when I learned that the states of Florida, Minnesota, and Rhode Island, as well as the country of France are not immune to his demented yarns. So much for ever living in any of THOSE places. ;-)

This was a pretty solid page turner from King. He sets up the story well, executes, and manages to put a pretty good ending on it to boot. The characters are fleshed out quite well, enough to get some emotional investment from this reader anyway, and the story is quite intriguing. The basic synopsis is this. Edgar Freemantle was a Minnesota building contractor in his former life, before the accident that took his right arm and very nearly his life. He ultimately ends up divorced, and on the advice of his therapist, he heads for total change of scenery on isolated Duma Key down in Florida where he starts to dabble in sketching and ultimately painting. As it turns out, Edgar is quite the gifted artist, growing moreso and painting at a blistering pace. Things are going unusually well of course until, as these scenarios so often do, things take a turn for the worse.

I often found myself taking "just 10 minutes" to read a bit before bed that invariably turned into a good hour or more. I'd highly recommend this one if you don't mind the genre King usually writes in (that being "spooky stuff").

A surfeit of movies

The unusually handsome and talented editors of AMR bring you yet another cornucopia of cinematic delights.

Starting off this batch is Jim Carrey's Yes Man where Jim has ample opportunity to be the spazz his fans have come to know and love. This movie kinda fits in between Liar Liar and Me, Myself, and Irene in the sense that it has some uncomfortable humor beyond the former but doesn't go completely over the top like the latter (see: amorous old lady sans dentures...there, you're welcome for that image).

Jim's character is rather reclusive and depressed until, in an uncharacteristic move, he attends a self-help seminar at the behest of an old friend. At the seminar he is quite literally scared into living his life saying yes to absolutely any and every opportunity to come his way, lest he suffer the consequences of being a no-man. The results are (as you likely suspect) quite amusing.

The caveat here is ya really probably need to be a Jim Carrey fan. If you're not, this film won't likely change your mind, but if you are, it's pretty consistently funny throughout. I'd recommend it.

I followed that up with a couple of films for the kids. (ok, I'm not fooling anyone. I like cartoons.)
Flushed Away is another installment from those crazy Plasticine stop-motion geniuses at Aardman, though done with computers this time as, if rumor is in fact true, water effects are rather difficult to do with clay, even for guys who can give a dog brilliant facial expressions. If they think it's too hard, I'm inclined to believe them.

The overall affect is entertaining, though personally I enjoyed Chicken Run and Curse of the Were-Rabbit more. The story is roughly this. A pet rat (Hugh Jackman) with a lavish lifestyle (as pets go) is surreptitiously flushed down the toilet where he's then subjected to the lifestyle of rat commoners. Along the way he's embroiled in a heist scenario involving a bunch of frogs (with expert voice work from Ian McKellan and Jean Reno), and he learns about the true value of family (via Kate Winslet), realizing what he's been missing out on in his life "up top." It's a cute movie and worth a view, especially if you have children.

Bolt sets up an interesting story. Bolt (John Travolta) is a dog. He's also an actor and a big star. And he has no idea. He was raised up from puppyhood along with Penny (Miley Cyrus) to believe that he was altered to possess super powers, that he was specifically assigned to protect Penny, and that Penny was under constant threat from the evil Dr. Calico and his minions. As such, he has no experience with anything constituting the life of a normal dog and he lives on the set.

All is well until the day Bolt accidentally finds himself off the set, out of his element, seriously lost, and strangely sapped of his super powers. Thus begins an odyssey to get home and back to the ever-important job of protecting his beloved Penny.

It's a cute story, the voice acting's pretty good and the dialog is done pretty well to boot. This is another one to watch, again, especially if you have children.

Back to more serious fare, I watched Blade Runner, The Final Cut. I have it on good authority (my Irish neighbor) that this is THE version to watch. Not the pesky so-called original, nor the ill-named "director's cut."

For the amusements of my reader(s), yes, only a mere 27 YEARS after it hit the big screen, I have finally watched it. Truth be told, I was secretly holding out for the 2007 digitally remastered version before I decided this film had earned the honor of my discerning eye. Yeah. That's it.

I was pleasantly surprised. There is no end of sci-fi films that have really suffered the advances of actual technology and modern cgi effects and that really show their age. This one holds up surprisingly well. I found the story quite good (and well acted), the "future" I thought was portrayed with a still-more-than-acceptable view, and the effects were more than suitable such that they didn't jar a person out of the watching experience. If you, like myself, haven't yet seen this one, I'd highly recommend it.

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen

I thought I'd reviewed the first one already, but on second look, I don't believe I have. So I'll kinda sorta do both here (the cast of characters is largely the same).

For starters, if you're looking purely for raw action, the first edition of Transformers has some good stuff, but the second, Revenge of the Fallen (hereafter RotF), has it in spades. Again, purely looking at the action side of things...that being chase scenes, fights, more fights, cool weapons, things blowing up. The first movie was no slouch in this department so it really is saying something that the second one has more.

Now, if only "more" was a good thing. But alas, it's not always the case. If you cram in more action, something's got to go, and in this case it was the dialog and character building that made the first film better all around.

The plot of RotF, such that it is, isn't too complex and is on par with the first, but the path through it is quite different. In the first, time was taken on...what was it? Oh yeah, acting. People actually had a place in the first film and some character development actually occurred. In RotF, we make our way through the plot via scene after scene of heavy-handed set pieces and battles. It doesn't flow nearly as well.

Plus, in RotF, Michael Bay reminds us that he likely once lived at home in his mother's basement during college, actively not scoring on hot chicks, and now that he's Mr. Big Shot movie directory, he throws in scenes for those around the world living with their own mothers. How, you ask? Well, in moves doing nothing to enhance the film at all, purely for gratuitous affect and to (I would imagine in Mr. Bay's words) "make da bitches do my bidding", we're treated to camera zooms up the backsides of Megan Fox and Isabel Lucas. I'll state for the record that they are quite attractive and the views would be wholly appreciated in a suitable medium...say a frat comedy, swimsuit issue, on the internet, etc. In RotF, well, who knows. A chihuahua humping another smallish dog for maybe a couple seconds, interjected into the middle of a small transformer skirmish? Why!? It wasn't particularly amusing and didn't really belong either. And let's not forget a small RC-sized transformer humping Megan Fox's leg, at length. Also we were treated to the duelling Jar-Jars of the transformer world, a pair of annoying twins. At one point one of them kicks some butt on a MUCH larger transformer, and that was sweet, but otherwise they should've died back on cybertron.

Fortunately we'd heard many an awful review before attending. With rather low expectations, we enjoyed it for the popcorn fare that it was.

For those who haven't seen either of these movies, watch the first one and enjoy the heck out of that, then, dump any expectations of decency, make a big batch of popcorn, grab 2 liters of soda, and kick back for 2 and a half hours of endless raw action with a smattering of plot.

Added note of annoyance #1: This installment also has a fembot. This being a decepticon who looks, acts, and apparently feels like a normal human. Um, perhaps I missed something there, but these transformer robots tend to be highly mechanical and largely consist of metal. Not sure who thought this was a good idea or the best way to muddle through that particular thin plot point.

Added note of annoyance #2: My wife asked me a great question. The all-spark can (among other things) take normal devices and turn them into robots. Why is it that it only seems to produce instantly pissed off robots? (and this follows over from the angry cell phone from Transformers 1) The way those devices all behave initially, it's difficult to believe their kind ever managed to arise to any level of civilization, much less have any of them randomly decide to be nice.

Presenting, for your ethical consideration...

The Final Cut presents quite the interesting story. Thanks to the marvel of the Zoe implant (from what I could tell, introduced in utero), the entirety of a person's life as they see and hear it is preserved like the ultimate home movie.

At the end of a person's life, the implant is (optionally) gone through by a "cutter", a person whose job it is to sift through a person's life story and create, based on extensive background discussion with family and friends, a Rememory...essentially a tribute video of all the good moments people want to remember the deceased for. A cutter lives by a strict code where they never sell or leak any such information and they are inherently forbidden to have one of these implants themselves.

There is a group of people opposed to the Zoe implants, and while many have them, there are large numbers who do not. Some view the implants as a tremendous invasion of privacy, and for obvious reasons. People could very well show up in someone's memory under less than flattering circumstances.

That (plus perhaps a bit more) can be ascertained from the trailer and movie jacket. So, how's the movie fare?

Robin Williams plays Alan Hakman, a professional cutter who has developed a stellar reputation for the rememories he pieces together from peoples' lives. He also is the guy people go to when the life in question has rather unsavory qualities. Even with full knowledge that every moment of their lives are recorded, some people still choose to make dubious choices, and Alan is, unfortunately, due to his past, perfectly suited to deal with these situations. The cast is rounded out with Jim Caviezel, long time associate of Alan, cutter, and man with his own problems, and Mira Sorvino who is Alan's love interest of sorts.

Overall, I thought the story was told pretty well and the acting was generally solid. I thought Williams brought an appropriate amount of gravity to his situation, I thought Caviezel turned in a good performance as well, and Sorvino's part was acted ok, but I'm still puzzling out just what she really had to do with the overall story. I thought it was worth the rental and it was a decent thriller. That's a bit vague, I know...I shall have to come up with some sort of rating system one of these days.

Any suggestions?

For the rest of the dissection, spoilers may be interspersed, you've been warned.

Think of all the things you do routinely, have done in the past, or have watched others do, then ask yourself whether or not mankind should ever aspire to this sort of technology. Every trip to the toilet, intimate moments of every persuasion, every ethical lapse, white lie and transgression laid bare once you croak. Knowing they had this in their head would undoubtedly impact the way many people live their lives, but would it necessarily be for the better? What opportunities or discoveries would be lost by people second-guessing or hesitating when they don't really need to? It's an interesting proposition.

In the film, Alan grows up harboring a deep and entirely personal tragedy of having watched another kid his own age fall to his death in an old warehouse, then not much later suffering the loss of both parents. His life and mental state is one spent traveling down a dark and lonely road, and he sees cutting the lives of the unclean as a penance he needs to pay for his own past deeds. Caviezel's character is/was a cutter who is working with anti-implant groups to try and expose the implants for what they really are, namely a way to record the grievous misdeeds of one of the people who headed up the company that manufactures them (the client whom Alan is working on).

Where I think Sorvino's character comes into this is, she knows Alan and knows what he does, and she's not sure how he copes with it, but she allows for the career as a necessary part of life. That is until she discovers Alan did the cutting on an old boyfriend and has therefore had some very deeply personal glimpses into her life. At that point, the full gravity of his job hits home.

Flaws aside, the idea behind the movie is certainly good food for thought in a society that so readily gets swept up in technological gizmos.

An apt title

The follow-up to Batman Begins, The Dark Knight is dark indeed. It's darker than the darkly lit darkness on a dark dark night.

It's the stuff black holes are made of.

It's also quite good.

I only make a big deal out of the dark material as my son is excited about Batman, but I really don't think he's ready for this heavy of a movie yet.

This installment takes the brooding aspects of the first film, amplifies those a bit, then trims back on the lighter moments giving us a story that gets down to business and then stays there.

The opening act introduces us to two characters at opposite ends of the behavioral spectrum. On one side we have ambitious straight-arrow district attorney Harvey Dent (Eckhart), intent on cleaning up Gotham's streets right down the last crooked con. Providing balance in this universe is The Joker (Ledger) who is a criminal with no particular motive other than being the best...er, worst criminal he can be. Money? Bah! He operates on the cheap and off the cuff. Chaos and disarray are his rewards, and he seeks those rewards with great enthusiasm. Gyllenhaal replaces Katie Holmes as "Rachel Dawes, the character who simply must be there for some reason, but who really isn't as consequential as the story would try to get us to believe."

Between Dent's goodness and the Joker's badness, Batman fills the void weaving back and forth across that fine line of morality. The story is pretty tight and told and acted well. There was a point where I was sure we were winding up to the dramatic conclusion only to get past that hurdle to continue the climb.

The acting was universally really good. Bale manages to kick a fair bit of butt while allowing Batman to be a little vulnerable. Ledger fulfills the creepy promise of clowns worldwide by practically oozing droplets of evil. Eckhart was a great choice for Dent and really owned the role, and the smaller bits by Caine and Freeman were good too. For what it's worth, Gyllenhaal did a fine job I guess. It just felt like her role was added in there because somebody thought it should be. There's just enough Rachel Dawes to be significant to the plot, but not enough to really have her character involved. It was odd. Normally it would bug me that they swapped out the actress, but her face-time was so limited that I just didn't care.

Overall it's a really good movie, it's just really dark. I wouldn't have minded some more lighter moments sprinkled in there to bring the mood up just a bit, but the storytelling was really good just the same. I'd recommend watching it, but do review it first before introducing it to your children.

Never thought I'd be watching fishing shows

Our neighbors were kind enough to introduce us to a documentary TV series out of Australia called A River Somewhere, and while I have no idea where the vast majority of the world could get ahold of this thing, it is, in a word, brilliant.

Two Aussie blokes, Tom Gleisner and Rob Sitch, traverse the world looking for great places to fish. The nice thing about the 13 episodes they filmed is, it's not JUST about fishing. They cover all the bits in between as well.

There is cultural commentary, scenery, exotic locations, the fishing of course, and the culinary wrap-up which is always interesting. All of this is packaged with their subtle and (for a show about rivers) often dry sense of humor. We particularly enjoyed an episode about Wyoming and had some good laughs at their entirely justifiable commentary on American existence. ("27 different types of eggs on the breakfast menu", "I ordered a bowl of fruit and the whole place went quiet")

A quick list of countries they visit: Australia (of course), New Zealand, the U.S., England, Scotland, Venezuela, Bhutan, Belize, India, and Italy.

If you can get ahold of this and enjoy a good travel show, I'd highly recommend it!

Movie grab-bag

My wife went on holiday for a couple weeks, so what's a fella to do?! Well, in my case, I really paint the town red and rent a truckload of movies so that I don't have to expend any mental energy entertaining myself. As you will soon witness, I only rent sophisticated independent art house flicks. Was it worth it? Let's see.

First up was one for the adult in the house. Tropic Thunder firmly establishes for me that there is something peculiar to a movie once Ben Stiller has been injected into it. In this case, he wrote, starred, and directed which makes for a perfect storm of uncomfortableness. This movie takes a South Park-esque approach to the movie industry, poking fingers squarely in the eyes of the action, drama, and comedy dreck that is churned out today. It's a movie about the making of a war movie that really isn't going well. The big surprise for me was Tom Cruise coming in and stealing the show with his characterization of a big studio executive. There were a fair number of other laughs to be had, and plenty of uncomfortable moments, but at the end, Tom's character was the stand-out.

Would I recommend it? Honestly, I'm not sure. I'm a fan of most of the actors in it, the actors certainly seemed to be in their element, and it was certainly an interesting experience, but be prepared for full-on Ben Stiller-style humor.

With The Simpsons Movie, the review is a bit more straight forward. If you like the show, you'll like the movie. The film isn't much more than an extended version of the TV show, with the exception (addition?) of minor bits of language that would probably get crossed out by the censors.

The plot's fairly standard. Thanks to Homer's thoughtless ineptitude, the citizens of Springfield are endangered, but they are ultimately saved by Homer's extremely dumb luck. You don't have to be a religious follower of the TV show to watch the movie, but it does help with some of the in-jokes. In particular, the town of Springfield has often been a source of speculation for fans. What actual town are they referring to?! Ned Flanders gives a good indication when he says, on a hill outside of town, that you can clearly see the bordering states of Nevada, Ohio, Kentucky, and Maine. Funny stuff indeed! So, if you like the Simpsons, check out the movie. If not, your mileage may vary.

Martian Child is a sweet drama/comedy about a sci-fi writer (John Cusack) who, a couple years after his wife's passing has sort of decided to adopt a child. The agency he deals with has a particular child in mind. A roughly six or seven year old boy who seems thoroughly convinced he is in fact from Mars.

Cusack is tentative about the adoption and about putting himself out there emotionally but ultimately decides to go ahead and give it a try.

The resulting film is often sweet and funny yet sprinkled with dashes of sadness and heart. It's an entertaining and enjoyable film for the whole family and it carries some really nice messages about love and family.

For more Jack Black goodness, we watched Kung Fu Panda. This movie was a good step for the DreamWorks animation folks in my opinion. It relies less on pop-culture references for joke material and I think overall it'll weather better as a result.

Black is the main character Po, a noodle soup maker by trade who has flights of fancy about being an amazing kung fu master. His portly physique and athletic deficits make this an unlikely prospect, but through an unlikely twist of fate he finds himself being trained by an impatient teacher for an insurmountable challenge.

It's a cute film and comes through with the message of believing in yourself and in your dreams. The humor has good stuff for kids and adults alike, and I'd recommend giving this a watch.

What we're missing

The Age of Missing Information is an informal non-scientific experiment of sorts by author Bill McKibben.

He wondered one day, in this "information age" we live in where all of this knowledge is supposedly at our proverbial fingertips, are we really any better off. So, for his little experiment, he compared and contrasted his feelings and experiences of spending a full 24 hours off, alone, camping in the woods and mountains near his home with the wonderful knowledge-base that is a 24 hour cycle of cable television.

I'll elaborate here on the TV side of things. This was not sitting around for a day straight, flipping through the channels. With the help of friends, Bill recorded EVERY channel's 24 hours of programming for all 93 channels of the cable network he had access to. At the time it was one of the largest cable markets in the U.S. He then waded through the resulting 2000+ hours of quality programming looking for the information.

This book is in some senses a bit dated. He wrote this back in 1990, and as many can surely attest, 93 channels is some quaint throwback to when cable wasn't that great, as now there are packages with channels in the hundreds. Additionally, now we have a much larger internet presence and all the "information" offered there. By the same token, this book captures many truths that still hold true today, and perhaps even moreso. People have become largely disconnected with nature. We no longer focus on the good of the community because TV (and certainly now the internet as well) tell us with brutal frequency that no, it's us, specifically it's me, I'm what's important. And I need "stuff" to affirm it. I need to tune out the planet because the planet's not so concerned with me.

There is in fact the occasional good morsel on TV, and the author concedes this, but at the same time, the way this is written serves to underline the absurdity that IS an extremely large portion of today's programming. People need a solid and significant exposure to nature in order to keep themselves grounded and to focus on the bigger picture and on what's important in life. We need the information that we can only get by spending time immersed in nature. We're getting less and less of this, and it's to our own detriment. I'd highly recommend giving this a read. It's well written and it carries a valuable message.

Star Trek

The most recent Star Trek movie from J.J. Abrams of Lost fame is a fresh take on the Star Trek universe.

"Fresh," you say? "How can it be fresh where there've been umpteen different movies and TV series...practically more approaches than there are stars in the Vulcan sky!?"

Well, I'll tell you. Ya take your space, ya take your time, and ya do a bit of tweaking and bending. The result in this case is largely excellent. This flick takes us back to the genesis of the Star Trek crew we came to know and love in the original series and earlier movies, fresh out of cadet training. Kirk, Spock, Bones, Uhura, Scotty, Sulu, and Checkov to name a few.

Abrams and crew keep the action moving along at a nice clip, the CGI is superb, the character development feels pretty good, and the story flows really well. I did have a quibble or two (to be addressed further along), but otherwise really enjoyed this adaptation. They take you on quite a ride and if you have at least a passing interest in science-fiction, I would highly recommend this movie. Go see it. You'll enjoy it.

What follows from this point is a more descriptive review of the plot, likely containing stuff that would be qualified as spoilers, so if you want to avoid those, you've been warned.

The film jumps right in with an anomaly in space (don't they all) out of which pops one pissed off Romulan. The Hulk...er, Nero, is angry and he has a bone to pick with a certain Vulcan, and he's so enraged that he travels back in time to exact his revenge. It's in this opening bit that we get to meet Jim Kirk's father who performs some moving heroics of the self-sacrificing nature to save the vast majority of the crew on his ship including his wife and actively-being-born son.

We're then treated to a brief interlude of young Jim and Spock going through various adolescence fun followed closely by some high level views of their Starfleet Academy time. We also get to meet Bones and Uhura in here and see some nice character development touches that fall in line really well with history. Kirk is of course the cocky swaggering ladies man, Spock's pretty well got his emotions under control, Bones is prematurely old-man-grumpy, and Uhura adapts quite readily to the extra short skirt female cadets wear to entertain the fellas on the bridge.

A distress call comes in (as they do), these young cadets are put into action right away since all the other big and important ships are off somewhere else (as they always seem to be), and, due to the high level of danger involved, death followed by exceedingly rapid promotion are the order of the day and it doesn't take long for our young cadets to be in charge of the whole shootin' match (I bet life insurance is VERY difficult to get in their line of work).

The distress call, as it turns out, is from a much larger ship with far superior fire-power from the future piloted by our good friend Mr. Nero. He chased Old Spock (also coming in from the future) into this dimension because he felt betrayed by Old Spock with the result that a whole bunch of Romulans had died. His plan is to systematically eradicate the Federation by means of drilling into Federation planet surfaces and dropping in "red matter" which, as we all know, turns the planet into a singularity (aka. a black hole). First stop, Vulcan. Percentage-wise, not very many Vulcans survived. After that, Earth was the next stop where (in my opinion) the biggest surprise of the movie occurred.

Using their massive drill they proceed to start making a hole right next to the Golden Gate bridge. This is a long tendril of a drill dangling from the Romulan spaceship which is still up in orbit. At one point, the good guys swoop in and blast the drill, severing it from the mother ship. The falling debris - in a HIGHLY uncharacteristic movie moment - MISSES the bridge! See??? THAT is truly unexpected. Given the choice, directors ALWAYS take out the national monument! Such restraint is rare indeed.

I digress...

The good guys save the day of course, rounding out their little band of merry space travelers along the way. Again, overall, the movie was loads of fun, enjoyable to watch, and I sure hope they can continue in this line of thought.

My one beef with it, and frankly I thought this was a really odd shortcoming after all that other excellence, was the bit about the "red matter." A quick look around the web and this red matter business wasn't well received. The matter in question was brought into the plot by Old Spock in his ship as this quite large red ball of...er...well...matter, suspended in a vacuum container. A single drop of this stuff extracted, stuck in a container, and dropped into a hole in a planet is enough to set off the chain reaction that turns the planet into a black hole.

Fine, it's black hole juice, but there's no real explanation for the stuff, where it comes from, why it's there, what's Old Spock doing with it (and with SO MUCH of it), etc. Some super Trek nerds could probably set me straight on this, but for the general population, it looked like a giant brain fart with the plot. Seems like they could've concocted something like super-anti-genesis torpedos (from the Wrath of Kahn era...only, ya know, more superer) and had a more plausible scenario. There's more than one way to destroy a planet after all. So there ya have it, the one obvious weak link (in my opinion) of a pretty solid story.

The primary intent with the plot as they laid it out was this. Now that Nero has come back to the past fairly drastically altering events, they have a LOT of room to follow this story down whatever rabbit holes they so choose. Here's hoping they take time and write compelling scripts for future installments.

Now, go see it.

Femme Fatale

Merriam-Webster offers two definitions of Femme Fatale:

1 : a seductive woman who lures men into dangerous or compromising situations2 : a woman who attracts men by an aura of charm and mystery

To be fair to the movie, the dictionary definition says nothing about seducing or attracting men with their acting ability.

This is not to pick on Ms. Romijn, the female lead. All of the performances were largely phoned in. Antonio didn't do anything particularly special here, and neither did anyone else. The plot, for its part, is actually pretty good and this could've been a better movie had the director saw fit to insist on better performances from the cast.

The basic plot synopsis is this. Rebecca royally shafts some bad people early in the flick then disappears for a number of years, only to be brought back to public awareness by struggling paparazzo Antonio. She then, as a master planner, cooks up a plan to manipulate Antonio into appearing to have taken her hostage for a significant ransom. The bad guys, having harboured a grudge and seen her tabloid pictures, show up to throw a wrench in the works.

As you can see, there's enough plot there to, cleverly written and acted, produce a pretty good movie, but they throw in a decent twist on top of that as well.

So...recommendations... Um, it's ok cable fare or if you're in it for the boobies or something, but I wouldn't say it's worth paying to watch.

Finally hit the big time

Holy crap! 

There's an honest to goodness comment on here from somebody I don't know directly! (yeah, it doesn't take much to get me excited... I didn't think anybody read this damned thing, INCLUDING the people I know) 

Anyhoo, pay a visit to the fine proprietor of the Lesbian Movie Guide where they obviously have excellent taste in the selection of blogs they choose to read. ;-)

The World Unseen

The World Unseen is the heart-rending tale of forbidden love set within the confines of Indian culture during 1950's apartheid South Africa.

Shamim Sarif spins a web of enduring hope offset by emotionally and physically brutal reality that, while telling a thoroughly absorbing fictional tale also marches through prejudice and tradition of all kinds illustrating the fallacies behind them.

Is one race of people really worth less than another. Why does a person (in Indian culture) go through with an arranged marriage. Why is it that love is unacceptable depending on the race or gender of the people involved.

The story follows the lives of two Indian women. Amina, a successful business woman who is largely seen as an outcast amongst the Indian community as she very much has a mind of her own about the direction her life should take. In stark contrast, Miriam is married with three children and has always been obedient as appropriate to her extended family and to her husband from an arranged marriage. Upon first meeting, there is an instant and mutual attraction between the two women, and we are taken on an emotional journey through the delicate and treacherous development of their relationship.

For those looking for cheap thrills, this isn't some kind of lesbian smut novel. The building relationship is handled with all the time, care, and often heart-breaking sentiment one would expect in a realistic setting, not the stuff of waving fields of grass and hair flowing in the breeze. Sarif wrote a really great book here, and I'd highly recommend it.