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.