"Legacy" Schmegacy

Hello everyone,

             Before we start I have something I really need to say…..um…….

             It’s not you……it’s me.

             Anyway, after last month’s midnight premiere of Harry Potter I thought it would be months before I decided to brave the fatigue of 3 AM to see another midnight premiere. Alas, that all changed last week when I got invited to see Tron: Legacy at the Capitol Theatre. It was a sequel to the intriguingly impressive 1982 Tron, and it was in 3D.

              Now I hadn’t seen anything in 3D yet. I avoided Avatar simply because I didn’t want to waste twelve more dollars on Dances With Blue-Cat People and I haven’t been interested in seeing any of the other films that have come out in 3D. Also, I didn’t want to waste money on a lie.

It’s not 3D. Yes, children, I hate to ruin Christmas for you like mom and dad did when you were eight, but all of the films advertised off as “3D” are not Three Dimensional. I know I just brought you all down, so here’s something to cheer you up.

For the men: boobs

For the women: a sexy guy in a hot dog costume

3D is real life. If you’re standing directly in front of me, I can reach around your back and tap you on the opposing shoulder. This is because the world exists in length, width, and the third and probably most important dimension, depth. 3D films only give off the illusion of depth. Look at your computer screen. Now look at your dog(or the floor), now your leg, now the room you’re in, and now, the finale, look back at this review. Congratulations, you have just experienced 3D!

Dance party break! 

…..

…..

If films were actually done in 3D, I would be able to walk up to the movie screen and tap one of the characters in the film on the opposing shoulder. Next time you go to a 3D film, take your glasses off for a minute. I’ll bet you my life savings that the 2D screen hasn’t morphed into real life. Now put the glasses back on and try and tap Johnny Knoxville on the opposing shoulder. Does your hand go behind him? I have a feeling the answer is no.

“But review guy,” you say to your computer screen “It makes me feels like I’m really there.” Maybe, but you don’t need 3D glasses to elicit that feeling. You see, all of you have something called an imagination, which I believe you are supposed to use when watching works of art.

Right, now that I’ve bittered-up the holiday season for everyone, let’s move on to the actual film.

Tron: Legacy was a bold move for Disney. The original Tron was, for the most part, a flop. It did relatively well, but was shat on by critics and the public alike when it came out in ‘82. Over the years, a plethora of SF fans and gamers have developed a cult following of the film, heightening its value just enough to coax a sequel out of Hollywood. Rumors of a second film date all the way back to the 1990s, and the hype for Legacy this year has been extraordinary.

Hype that is, for the most part, overblown.

Legacy has a good, grounded story that could have made for a great film. Kevin Flynn(Jeff Bridges) has disappeared, leaving his son Sam (Garrett Hedlund) distraught and depressed. When Flynn’s longtime friend Alan Bradley(Bruce Boxleitner) receives a mysterious page from Flynn’s abandoned office phone, he sends Sam to investigate. Sam accidently gets sucked into the digital world, where he is captured by Flynn’s digital-world alter-ego Clu. Sam then goes through a flurry of gladiator-like games, including a light cycle battle against Clu himself, before being rescued from certain death by a mysterious woman named Quorra(Olivia Wilde), who takes him to be reunited with his father. At this point, the plot goes on autopilot and becomes the stereotypical action-adventure film, ending in a climatic battle of good and evil that evil could have easily won if it had any sense.

Oh yeah, there’s also some sub-plot about people called ISOs and how they’re going to change all of humanity, though it’s never explained why or how and proved to be small beans in terms of plot contribution. 

The rest of the film, save for the production design which I’ll get to in a moment, falls flat on its face from beginning to end. The script evoked feelings of murderous rage, from the melodramatic, stereotypical action film lines, to the bastardization of Jeff Bridge’s character, who was one part Flynn, one part the Dude from Lebowski. Not that I hate the Dude or anything, but he’s the Dude…in fucking Tron. It made me cringe.

As we all know, no bad script can be complete without bad acting. Garret Hedlund’s Sam Flynn made Hayden Christenson’s Anakin Skywalker look good, which is quite a stunning achievement. Jeff Bridges Flynn has apparently found his zen, which makes him moderately interesting to watch at times. In addition, Bridges also plays Clu, complete with CGI to make him look thirty again. The CGI human features were pretty solid, though creepy at times. Olivia Wilde turns in a pair of beautiful eyes and a nice body but absolutely nothing else. The only decent acting to appear was by the very talented Michael Sheen, who plays the smiley gangster Zuse. Sheen’s brief, over-the-top shenanigans were a firework in a field of sparklers, and a thankful relief from the rest of the cast.

Legacy falls into the category of a “saved by a thread” kind of film, and it’s saving grace is the production design. The digital world that was crafted for the film in ’82 was more than good, and the sequel only builds on it. The original world was carved in grids and sharp edges, like circuitry. The newer, more modern, digital world comes in all shapes and sizes. Landscapes, vehicles, and the general environment are three times as flexible, and the color and tint of the art design is a treat for the senses.

            And that seems to be the goal nowadays, doesn't it? Treating the senses?

People are impressed with sub-par entertainment these days, and it bothers me. We have modern appliances and modern technology because someone, somewhere, at some point in time, put in the long hours and the energy to make them. We have memorable paintings, plays, and books that artists sometimes starved themselves to create. None of these people took shortcuts.

I miss the days before computer-generated images became the norm; when special effects were the obstacle rather than the feature; back when a plot problem had to be solved using intelligence and intuition rather than a computer.

It’s not real---a CGI image I mean. You can detail it until your blue in the face, but you can never fool the human eye, and you will especially never fool the trained human eye. It knows when something is real, and when something is not. There’s a reason why films from the twenties, thirties, forties, and fifties continue to fascinate modern audiences. They had spectacle to them. They used huge sets, thousands of bodies, models, extensive costumes(the guy who played the original Godzilla could only stay in the suit for 30 seconds before passing out). Hard, grueling work was put into every minute of every hour to make the final product shine in theatres. Part of the awe of those films is seeing what the minds, hands, and bodies of filmmakers could do when exerted, and the results were extraordinary.

Actors and directors had to fiddle with malfunctioning set pieces(Jaws was a bitch to make) and costume pieces. Make-up had to be used to alter features---you get the point, all right?

What I want to know is: when did “easy” start to mean “better”? When did doing things the hard way become not only outdated, but wrong? I may be overreacting to this; the answer may in fact be “money.” It more than likely is. When money is involved, the meaning of words and actions seem to magically change. Nevertheless, how does having a sizable amount of amazing special effects magically increase a films worth? Why is art that makes you feel good and comfortable worth more in general than art that depresses you?

That’s what I think social networking and information sharing has done: it’s devalued our humanity. Our thoughts and feelings go on to Facebook and are forgotten about. Why? You are human beings. Your depression has value, your pain has value, your suffering has value---as much value as happiness, comfort, satisfaction, etc. The negative feelings need to be welcomed and embraced as much as the positive ones; and not just when and where you’d like them to, but everywhere in everything. 

The friend that I went and saw Tron: Legacy with was a little kid when the first Tron came out. It’s one of his favorite movies of all time. He’s been waiting 28 years for Hollywood to bring it back to the screen. His reaction to Legacy: “It was what I expected it to be.” That, I think, is the most sickening criticism an artist can get. I would much rather have someone tell me my work was shit.

Yet this seems to be the standard nowadays, at least with movie and television franchises. They know that millions of fans will come out and pay for their film, so they don’t bother to make it be any better than it needs to be. Tron: Legacy falls into the same category as Avatar, Star Trek, The Last Airbender, the first six Harry Potter films, and the Star Wars prequel trilogy as films that could have been milestones had the people making them actually cared.

I guess I’m demanding too much. It was too much to ask for Lost to have more depth than a tabloid magazine, for Star Trek to be more than a generic film that anyone could have pulled out of their ass in twenty minutes, for Tron: Legacy to be more than expected. After all, people want to get what they want, and the needs of the many always outweigh the needs of---  

You know what; nevermind. As I said earlier:

it’s not you, it’s me.

            Now go put on your franchise character T-shirt. It makes you look more like a geek.

            Ciao.

Harry Potter and the Mid-Night Brawl

Carpooling, friends and family, new cases of diabetes---ahhhh, yes, it’s midnight premiere season yet again; a most wonderful time of any year where people from all sorts of neighborhoods and boroughs get together in celebration of yet another addictive film franchise.

“I love film franchises! Woo!”

This time around, it is Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part I, starring nude-no-more Daniel Radcliffe, bear-child Rupert Grint, and fan-favorite Emma Watson, directed by (who amongst you is actually going to care?) David Yates. Nine and eight years ago, the first and second Harry Potter films graced the cinemas with their exposition-squeezed stories that informed audiences about the witch-and-wizard world they were being pulled into---and then abruptly ended and went to credits. Finally, as Prisoner of Azkaban lay on the cutting room floor, the director(again, who is actually going to care if I don’t name him?) finally said “fuck it” and began hacking branches off J.K. Rowling's story, leaving behind most of the original material to keep Potter fans engaged but changing just enough so that those same fans interrupted each subsequent film several times to remind the entire audience that “::gasp:: that’s not how they did it in the book!” Since then, the films have gotten a more stable plot line and have had a chance to focus on the characters: Emo-Dysfunctional Boy, Cutesy-Brave Guy, and the Girl-Who-Proves-That-Men-Come-From-Jupiter-And-Women-Come-From Venus.

I’m sure I’m going to get booed for this---

“Booooo!”

-but I wish the three main actors would learn to act something than their own characters’ archetypes. I like the three of them, I really do; Watson, Radcliffe, and Grint make a lovable trio and work well together on film, but they seem to ignore the fact that people change over time; especially vulnerable, susceptible teenagers. Other than looking more grown up, Potter, Granger, and Weasley have apparently not been affected by the events that have forever changed their lives. For starters, Watson has used the same “Hermione-in-agony” expression for almost every moment in the last five films, while Radcliffe has turned Harry more emo than Peter Parker in “Spider-Man 3”, and Grint is as adorable as a puppy, but his actual level of bravery is certainly questionable. After everything he’s been through and overcome, he still cowers in the face of a challenge almost immediately. I’m not saying that newer challenges shouldn’t test his bravery---I’m saying it doesn’t need to happen immediately, yet it does every time. It’s a trait I see in all three of them; they are frightened, they overcome their fear, bravely conquer newer challenges, and come out better and stronger intellectually and emotionally---and then go right back to where they started at the beginning of the next film*.

These characters are satisfactory. Radcliffe, Grint, and Watson remind me of the main three from the book; but is that all? Is that all movie adaptations have to do to impress their audiences these days? As long as it follows the book and looks exactly like what we imagine, it’s fine? That’s it? Very few movies are "better" than the books that spawned them. Most of the ones that are considered “better” radically alter the book to fit a different vision, while still maintaining the core material from the original story; radically differ so much so that some fans don’t even consider the two to be related. Quite a catch-22 isn’t it: if the film doesn’t follow the book, fans get mad; if it does follow the book and cuts corners(God forbid they don’t show everything from all 400-600 pages), fans still get mad? Movies based off books have had more success(artistically anyway) when they are just that, based off the book, not tied to it. Why would one want the two to be the same? After all, each one of us sees these fantasy worlds differently, so no matter what, it’s almost never going to look the way we want it to on-screen. Plus, it’s not fair for the directors to have to conform to a story that’s already been written and imagined. Yes, they do get a chance to add their own style to the events from the book, but even then they don’t have too many options.

“Yeah philosophical, thought-provoking questions!”
“Will you please be quiet? We’re all trying to read this review too.”

That being said, there were stylistic choices that I thought Yates crafted superbly. The blacker tones and barren locations of this film informed the character’s struggle with the themes of isolation, loss, and entrapment. The dark heartbeat contrasts nicely with bright spots of comedy and dance(yes, dance) that relieve the tensed angst of the younglings’ mission to find four Horcruxes in the haystack of the entire world. Yates’s animated, Burton-esque telling of the Tale of the Three Brothers is a fantasy within a fantasy, giving this film as expressionist edge that I think is a bit too late in coming. Up to this point, the Potter films had been without animated, avant-garde art styles to turn them on their heads; having one suddenly be thrown into the mix in the next-to-last installment felt useless. Despite that fact, the segment was very beautiful and left me wanting more of it and wishing it had been used in previous films. Also, as I mentioned somewhat earlier, relatability has never been these films’ strong suit as the fans of the franchise have grown up and made all kinds of changes while our dear friends in the Harry Potter world are still getting into fights and leaving each other, apparently forgetting that that has never helped anything, ever.     

I’m not going to discuss how much of the book the film follows, simply because it can be summed up pretty easily: it doesn’t completely follow the book. What needs to be there is, all right? Hedwig still dies, Potter still kicks Umbridge’s toady ass, and Voldemort is still as ugly as---ah! aodjewiogfhretgiohrtgoihtrioygibrpfoatjpoaaf
Ght
Hyt
Ujhytkjuyl
Kiopoiijjh
Ilghh
 Ggg         gtgtr htyj yy6  jyt jk

“Stupefy! Nortono Insta Credito!”

Pardon the interruption there folks. As I was saying---and Vol—You-Know-Who---is still as ugly as the bastard child of Lucifer.

“Lame!”
“Shhhhh!”
“You ‘shhhhh!’”

 Earlier this week, in unconscious anticipation of soon realizing that it was coming out this week, I stumbled across an article in which Daniel Radcliffe had told reporters that Emma Watson"kisses like an animal". Radcliffe was referring to the scene in the film where Ron is being tempted into a fit of rage and jealousy by the Horcrux locket, which shows him an image of Harry and Ron's beloved Hermione sloppily making out. Now, most men my age would be looking forward to seeing Emma Watson make out with just about anyone(myself being in the minority that realizes that she’s about four years younger than me and that that means something), but what I was looking forward to seeing was what exactly Yates meant with his direction; according to Radcliffe, Yates told the actors that the first take was too soft, that they needed to be “more pagan and mad,” which is definitely a candidate in the running for Best Direction EVER!

“You---actor in the background, buttering your toast! More pagan and mad!”

“You---zombies! More pagan and mad!”

“You---Mel Gibson! More pag---act-actually, less pagan and mad for you; you already have enough of that. Thank you.”

Watson proceeded to heed Yates’s direction, and went at Radcliffe with “animal” lips, taking him almost completely by surprise. The scene itself turned out to be about as “pagan and mad” as an environmentalist’s Christmas party, though I’m sure the more perverted fans(of both genders) enjoyed watching Watson and Radcliffe make out naked(spoiler alert!)

“Yeah nakedness!”
“Shut the fuck up!!”
“Quit shushing me and read the review you fat fuck.”
“I’m going to get security.”

So, now to the question everyone has been wondering: if beer liked the taste of beer, would it drink itself? I don’t know.

Now to the relevant question everyone has been wondering: where does Part One end? All I will tell you is that ends with two contrasting scenes.

I would also like to tell you about the emotional impact of the end of the film. Unfortunately, I didn’t get a chance to watch the end of the film. During the last five minutes, an argument that had been stewing throughout the night between a heckler and a man-simply-trying-to-enjoy-the-film erupted when the man-simply-trying-to-enjoy-the-film recruited more like-minded fellows and, all uniting, proceeded to drag the heckler from his seat and yank him into the corridor, with much applause from the audience. However,---

“You---heckler guy at the Harry Potter midnight premiere! More pagan and mad!”

-the man soon returned, shirtless and ready to fight. He immediately charged into the aisles and started taking swings at the men who had kicked him out. Within five seconds, a police officer barged into the theatre and yanked the man, kicking and screaming, off his prey. Someone in the audience shouted “are you really going to do this over Harry Potter?” to which the macho, muscular, shirtless man responded “for Harry Potter? Yes!” He broke free and flew back into the aisles, causing many people---including a guy dressed in a hot dog costume, wearing a sign that said “Muggles are for wieners”---to stand up and hurry out of the way. A second officer then burst unto the scene and began wrestling the shirtless man to the ground( I later found out that the shirtless man was juiced up on Magic Multi-Spell Ale, known in the Muggle world as Four Loko).

And so, as the credits began to roll at 2:30 AM in the morning, all of the die-hard Harry Potter fans were left with a surge of adrenaline, absolutely no crying, and a story to tell for the next morning---all realizing this amidst a slew of shouts from the shirtless man as the officers continued to wrestle him to the ground in the aisles of the movie theater, forever proving that it takes a REAL man(and his whining, violent, and bitchy girlfriend) to enjoy Harry Potter at midnight with Four Loko.

“Yeah, wish I could see those cops kick that whiny asshole’s ass!”
“That’s it. Get out. Get the fuck out!”
“Hey, get your hands off of me. Don’t t---oh fuck, you’re gonna get it now.”

All in all, Deathly Hallows Part I is a film off the path of the other five; in a good way. Yates takes us all on a slow, more focused journey that allows us to truly immerse ourselves in the world we all love,---

“Will you guys stop, there’s only a few more lines l---hey, get off my lap!”
“Get out! Get out!”
“Get your fucking hands---I will kill you, you little son-of-a-bitch.”

---as well as focus intently on our main three in their final and most trying---

“Is it really worth this? For this stupid little review?”
“For this review of Harry Potter 7? On Facebook?!!! Yeah!!!!”

No. No, it really isn’t. Now you, put your fucking shirt back on, and you, next time around, pick a better time to act.

Ciao.

P.S. You---people who are going to comment on this review! More pagan and mad!

*Perhaps that is more Rowling’s fault than the actors. At the same time, though, lots of classic film and theatre characters have repetitious actions. That doesn’t mean the same choices need to made every time.

Strong and Dry

Winter’s Bone starts out with a laid back Missouri porch tune that relaxes you into your seat; and from that point on, it never lets you go. By the time it was over, I was humming Ray LaMontagne tunes in my mind, feeling the evening breeze splash over my hair.

     Set in the heart of the Ozark woods, Winter’s Bone follows seventeen-year old Ree Dolly(Jennifer Lawrence), who is struggling to care for her family. She soon finds out that her vanished father has put their land on jail bond, and sets out to find him. The story that follows is a pocket epic, sprinkled with deception, and driven by Ree’s downbeat determination to unravel the mystery surrounding her father. She meets strange characters, all of whom are a part of a circle of drug dealers, and journeys deep into the forest, though she returns home at the end of every journey. In the time when she is not investigating, she is teaching her little siblings to survive; how to cook, how to shoot rifles, how to hunt, how to be respectful, when to hold on, and when to let go.

        Writer/Director Debra Granik’s vision for this film takes flight with a clean crispness that blends the majesty of the Ozarks’ rolling plains with the snarling tree branches of its forests. Sound mixer James Demer’s emphasis of the trail mix of dirt and gravel crunches keeps the audience trudging along the same path as Ree, and adds a base to the dry atmosphere set up by Granik. Though the story is an epic at heart, it is told with the same inflection and grace as a lullaby before bed.

           There are many unspoken words and off-stage events in Winter’s Bone. Ree’s father is never seen, but the ambiguity of his character informs the twist and turns in the investigation. His past actions leave Ree with furious enemies and devoted friends, all of whom are hesitant to help or stop her.

    Jennifer Lawrence turns in an on-point interpretation of the passive-aggressive Ree, anchoring the film with a performance most actors will envy. She butters Ree with a rich country smoothness that ends in the serrated blade of her gritty determination. Her hawk-like stare freezes the audiences in their seats.

          I’ve never lived in the country before. The closest I’ve ever been are sleepovers at friends’ houses from Elyria to Chesterland(Ohio). At times, I wonder why I used to make the journey out there so much, even though it cost me a hefty share in gas and energy. It’s because there’s something peaceful out there, a closeness that city folk don’t really experience until everything around them is quiet(which is rare). Once you journey through the woods, be it on foot or in a car, you never come out the same. Some of the greatest stories ever told have been told at least partially in a forest. Granik’s film is as much about the Ozark woods as it is about Ree.

        The characters in the story reflect this. They are as close-knit as the trees, letting that closeness guide their common sense. The cast plays their roles passively, substituting drama with juxtaposition that highlights the intricate workings of their strained but hospitable relations. Though some of the names, like Teardrop and Thump, will certainly make any city viewers laugh, the culture that is reflected in every shot is bare-boned and voluntarily vulnerable, daring the audience to judge it.

        Overall, a simple, steady little tale about the Ozarks and its “bread and butter” natives.  

         Ciao. 

"Inception(Christopher Nolan's guide to being a professional Confused Man)"

At first, I feared "Inception" as yet another action movie with a mindfuck twist. Reviews from everybody started pouring in, and my fears were confirmed; this film was "amazing", "thought-provoking", "mind-numbing", "complicated"; basically a piece of shit with flashing neon lights. I sighed in grief. Another "Lost".

     Weeks went by. The ratings skyrocketed. Fan reaction swelled. A buzz electrified the air. The film was adored by people who thought they would hate it, loved by those who thought they would love it. I sighed in frustration. Another "Lost". Yet, due to my incessant desire to critique all things that are hyped, I found myself being pulled towards the film anyway. I finally snapped, and went straight to the theatre after work one day. I made sure to prepare myself as a critic, meaning under no circumstances would I allow myself to get so sucked into the film that I would stop looking at it with a critical eye. With that prepared, I marched into the theater.

     For those of you who are anticipating me saying that my efforts proved fruitless, you will now be disappointed. I never once got totally sucked in. "Inception" is a brilliant movie, enthralling in its own way, and probably the best film I have seen in a very long time. That being said, I hope your disappointment with me is not as great as my disappointment was with this film.

        "Inception" is the story of long time dream-invader and all around confused man Cobb(Leonardo DiCaprio) who is hired/blackmailed by corporate head Saito(Ken Watanabe) to invade the mind of even bigger-corporate heir Robert Fischer(Cillian Murphy) and perform an Inception on him. An Inception is when an expert Extractor(basically a professional Confused Man) enters deep into the mind of a...uh...client and plants a foreign idea into that person's subconscious via the client's dreams. If successful, the Inception will be accepted by the subconscious of the client and forever change him. The act of Inception(god, this sounds like a porno) is an almost impossible process, so it is rarely ever performed. During the Inception mission, Cobb is haunted by the locked-up memories of his dead wife, Mal(Marion Cotillard).

        "Inception" is soft science fiction trying hopelessly to be hard science fiction. For those of you unfamiliar with those terms, hard science fiction is technologically driven writing, the type of SF that is geared solely towards technology and its influence on society. Most hard SF writers were engineers of some kind before they started writing, therefore they naturally write like an engineer would. They do develop characters and explore themes, but the tech and ideas are always front and center. "2001, A Space Odyssey" is a great example of hard SF. Soft science fiction is science fiction that has numerous romantic undercurrents. "Star Wars" and "Star Trek" and the entire "space opera" sub-genre are perfect examples of this. Soft SF uses science fiction as an excuse to write about other things. The writing is usually about modern day society with a twist. This is what "Inception" was, and is why I found the film incredibly disappointing.

      "Inception" has a plethora of big, brain-teasing ideas. Behind these ideas are the technologies that execute them, technologies that are interesting in-and-of themselves. Unfortunately, Nolan never bothers to shine the spotlight on any of them. For example, every single time Cobb and his team jump into somebody's mind, they have to use a mysterious-box-with-blinking-lights. What this box does besides that is never even hinted at. Unless I'm mistaken, the box is never even given a name. Does it contain the built dream they all fall into? Does it save the dreams like a computer?

      Another piece of technology that has a serious personal connection with the characters are their totems---small objects which the dream-team(haha get it?) keeps on their person at all times to remind them that they are in a dream. These objects are unique to their specific carriers, and each one is chosen carefully. After their introduction into the film, they are promptly never seen again(save for Cobb's which is used more as a symbol of his guilt than a totem).     

      The architecture of the dreams gets the biggest shrug of all. In the beginning, Cobb takes on a young design student by the name of Ariadne(Ellen Page). Ariadne's job is to design the architecture of the dreams that Cobb uses to fool Robert Fischer. There is a sequence in which Cobb's partner Arthur(Joseph Gordon) explains the technique behind building a dream to Ariadne. She catches on quickly(as her archetype always does in these films) and is soon an unrivaled expert at the craft(bet you didn't see THAT coming did you?). But after that tutorial sequence is over, dream architecture is swept under the rug and forgotten. The audience sees Ariadne fiddling with cardboard models for one scene and then "shazam, dreamland is ready!" How she transitions from cardboard models to imagination and illusion is never shown, nor how she saves her work for later.

        Had the love story never been in the film, Nolan would have had more time to better explore the workings and capabilities of all these different technologies. I don't know about the rest of the audience, but I couldn't bring myself to give a shit about the relationship between Cobb and Mal. Yes, it was touching at times and might even be a tear-jerker to some, but I found the entire love story to be an anvil that weighed the film down.  

       This is where Christopher Nolan's genius goes sour. From the matrix of memories in "Memento", through the fire of chaos in "The Dark Knight", to the borderless majesty of dreams in "Inception", Nolan has always demonstrated a remarkable connection, understanding, and love for the ideas he presents. He takes pains for them, demands gracefulness, and explores their different textures, colors, and feelings, all while keeping his work smooth and flowing. His ideas are sharp and clear in his mind, and are thus sharp and clear on-screen. They are brilliant by themselves; so why kisses and flowery love stories are more important to Nolan I will never understand. He robs his own work.

         Liked it for the rush, disliked it for its choices, understood its message clearly, and am mixed about it overall. "Inception" has brilliant ideas, a delectable setting, and a clever scheme, all of which is then dashed against the rocks of yet another movie love story; in other words, the-same-bullshit-as-usual-that-could-have-been-amazing.

Ciao.

LOST---The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly: 6 Finale!

In a perfect world, LOST would have ended with a sledgehammer-to-the-skull so thrilling that the government would have to legalize marijuana just to deter people from choosing to bash their skulls with sledgehammers instead. Alas, this is not a perfect world, and LOST did not have a sledgehammer ending. Nevertheless, a relatively feasible amount of closure was reached…with an equally proportional amount of plot holes. 

The Good: 
1. Frank Lepidus is man I would sincerely share a joint with at a party one day. His survival skills and instincts border on the superheroic. 

2. One million internet dollars for all those who caught the “Christian Shephard” joke before the finale. 

3. As cheesy and corny as it is, the church ending is nice. It was a celebration with those characters whose contributions to the show were major, and while it leaves a rather unsavory taste in the mouths of those who were expecting more, a simple ending only proves that the most important part of any story is the journey, not the result. 

4. Ding-dong, the Smoke monster’s dead! 

The Bad: 
1. Oh, the gaping plot holes and unanswered questions. First up: why the fuck would Ben want the island to himself? He needs to preside over a society. He’s pretty useless if he doesn’t. 

2. The very ending itself is a frock stitched with mystery as to what the fuck the sideways universe is supposed to be. I always thought it was just a history of what would have happened if the plane hadn’t crashed. I didn’t think it needed to be anything special to the main storyline. In that way, the ending really disappoints. 

3. After all of Jack’s hardship and intense fighting, Kate is the one that pretty much kills Smokey? I mean, 4,815,162,342 points for teamwork, but that was supposed to be Jack’s kill---in total. Instead, he just got to kick him over a ledge. Why does Kate always have to ruin everyone else's moment? Boo! 

4. "This little light of mine/ I'm gonna plug-it-with-a-rock/This little light of mine/I'm gonna plug-it-with-a-rock/This little light of mine/It will always shine/Go ahead/Take-the-rock-out/But you'll dieeeeeee (unlessyou'reDesmond)." Seriously, the LOST writers have great ideas, but what was the point of the light other than to be a convenient plot device? If the island is as important as Jacob says it is(you know, keeping all the bad stuff in), then why build a way to destroy it? 

The Ugly: 
1. I haven’t seen the alternative endings to the show yet, but I’m hoping they all end the same way and just take different avenues to get there. I say that because if I find out that they are three completely different endings, I’m going to rant and be very mad again; after all, the writers have been telling us for years now that they already knew how it was going to end from the start. 

Answers: 
1. The island exists to keep bad spirits away. All it needs now is a night light; then it could---OOOOOOOOOOH! .....Check. 

“LOST: the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly: Series Wrap-up” coming soon…(brought to you by the Dharma Union of Slug-Hunting Tiny Cats) 

Ciao. 

LOST---The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly: 6 Parts 6+7

If you want to know why I haven’t written the last two reviews and won’t write a full review this time, skip directly to the Ugly section(don’t worry, it won’t take you long to get there anyway).


The Good: I don’t know. It’s funny and interesting sometimes.

The Bad: Luckily for me, even the more die hard LOST fans are starting notice more of this stuff. I’ve also noticed that I come away feeling slightly dumber after every new episode. But that’s just me.

Purgatory: Everything until the final episode.

The Ugly: I have decided after much careless and distracted thinking that I will discontinue these reviews until the final episode has come and passed. Reason being: LOST hasn’t changed, and I feel like I’m repeating myself in every single review I write this season. It’s still suspenseful, it’s still mysterious, it’s still dramatic, the writing is still kind of iffy, and the “predictable by being unpredictable” principle is still badly visible. The upside: no time travel. The downside: the sideways universe, which is about as useful as snot. I made all my points last season and LOST has done a terrible job coming up with something new(period) to comment on. I suppose, since I always say that nothing is ever fully explored, LOST has more to offer than I’m seeing and I bet if I looked up the source material for the show and maybe did some sort of comparison thing, I could come up with more interesting things to talk about; but alas, I am one man, with one job, and one life, and thus don’t have too much time to delve into the “deeper mysteries” of LOST.* If you really want to dig that deep, just go to your local bookstore or online and look for the book(1).

Plus, LOST is coming an end, so let’s just enjoy it.

Ciao.

P.S. Lesson of revealing too much too soon: learned.

*By “deeper mysteries”, I mean the stuff that science fiction has been talking about since the 40’s that the mass public is only now becoming awa

References: http://www.amazon.com/Lost-Philosophy-Reasons-Blackwell-Culture/dp/1405163151/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1269356778&sr=8-1

LOST---The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly: 6 Part 5

My wish is apparently LOST’s command. Hi-yuh; samurai action!


The Good:

1. Lots and lots of action to take my mind off of this complicated plot. The action scenes were very well done.

2. The annoying guy in glasses is dead. Finally.

The Bad:

1. Dogen is dead. WTF? I thought he’d be worth many more episodes. Then again, dead on this island never truly means dead anymore.

2. So Locke tells Sayid that he can have anything he wants, and Sayid pretty much believes him. When did these characters get so…trustworthy? First, it’s Jack, then Sawyer, and now Sayid? In myth I can believe this happening because those people listened to their Gods, but this is LOST, and both Jacob and Man-in-Black don’t seem to be too god-like besides the whole smoke-monster ability. It doesn’t even look like the writers are trying anymore. “Shit, Carlton, we need to get Sayid to go back. How do we do that?” “Have Locke tell him he’ll get whatever he wants in life if he does. Sayid will believe him. Other people will believe that as well.”

The Ugly:

1. Nowadays, people are hearing about all the different things we humans are developing that are “advanced”: tablet computers that are so advanced than regular iPods and iPhones, they fit in your bag instead of your pocket; sex robots so advanced they talk and feel just like a high-class whore; computer software so advanced, you won’t ever be able to tell whether an image is authentic anymore. With technology advancing more and more towards the beginning of self-inflicted human extinction, the demand for good television programming has already started to rise, due to the fact that our day-to-day needs are being met quicker. Television is the most accessible form of entertainment out there and, as more time passes, I strongly believe more and more people will be watching it. Programming for TV took a huge leap in a different direction following 9/11, what with shows like 24, LOST, and Heroes sweeping the nation by storm with the whole “what’s going to happen next” ploy. Other shows like “V” and “Flashforward” have emerged under that disguise as well.

Television needs to be careful. Its programming has been the same for a good little while now, but it needs to make sure it doesn’t fall into the pattern of being something that people can count on all the time.

Answers: None

All righty, good times. See ya’ll next week.

Ciao.

LOST---The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly: 6 Part 4

This episode proved that LOST and I have something in common: we both miss Season One.

The Good:

1. We got our first glimpse as to how deep the rabbit hole goes as far as the sideway’s universe is concerned: Jack has a son. Not really a surprise, considering all the daddy issues that blitzkrieg this show every chance they get, but watching Jack trying to be a father is much more interesting than watching Jack trash a mirror because---gasp---he doesn’t know why his name is on a lighthouse gear!

2. I stand convinced that Claire can handle being the henchmen. It’s clear she’s badass, that’s for sure.

The Bad:

1. Dogen’s sideway’s universe character is a loving, musician-dad? When’s the samurai action coming in?! Come on!

Purgatory:

1. The lighthouse itself. A ship parked at the center of the island, a mysterious hatch, a cave in the side of the island with numbers written all over the ceiling, a crashed plane, an air balloon, the abandoned Dharma stations; the thing that all these ruins have in common is that they are all interesting. Why are they in Purgatory? Because they’re all comfortably interesting; logically interesting. They’re all something one would expect anyone to be interested in. There’s nothing in there that’s daring, that’s bold. Sure, it’s strange that they are there, and that teases the brain, but…I don’t quite know how to explain this and if I suddenly get it spot on I’ll let you know.

The Ugly:

1. Chipping off my shoulder this week comes another reason as to why J.J. Abram’s doesn’t impress me. He always does what’s comfortable. I would really like to see him create something that makes us uncomfortable, that makes us question ourselves; something that challenges himself, makes his audience doubt his abilities. I specifically target Abrams in all this because he did “Star Trek” too; and he made “Star Trek” look like something I’m positive it’s not.

Every time someone tells me that “Star Trek” is about the future, I secretly laugh at them; “Star Trek” is as much about the future as James Cameron’s “Titanic” is about the sinking of the RMS Titanic. I think ole’ J.J. does this because he knows that making it ABOUT the future instead of merely SETTING a story in the future is more comfortable, and will make audience’s feel more comfortable. As much as I loved the new “Star Trek”, there was nothing new in it; nothing that made me start a conversation. “Star Trek” has always been about the betterment of humanity, and all the episodes Gene Roddenberry and the other writers wrote were meant to make the audience look at themselves, and question things they believed. The new “Star Trek” film is very comfortable. It’s made to be likable. One walks out of the movie theater afterwards in a state of “awesomeness”. They see a homeless man on the street, and they walk right by him, like usual. They feel good; why on Earth should they risk losing that? They don’t want to be uncomfortable, and homelessness, poverty, disease, misfortune---all that stuff is just so uncomfortable, let somebody else deal with it. That’s the exact opposite of the Star Trek many fans know and love. Captain Picard would never do that to someone who needed his help. Neither would Kirk(Kirk would also use compassion because he cared, not because it would make him look good in the eyes of the Romulan Empire). Captain Sisko would never walk by someone like that, neither would Captain Archer, or Captain Janeway.

I’m sure Gene Roddenberry knew how to write a good show. I bet he could write something like LOST without breaking a sweat. He was keen to audience’s likes and dislikes, and had years of experience prior to writing “Star Trek”. Instead he chose to show them something he felt they needed to see; with content that he knew would make them uncomfortable. He made a Russian one of the main characters during the middle of the Cold War, made a black woman the first “babe on the bridge”---so to speak---just two years after the end of the Civil Rights Movement and when women were still treated as inferior, put out a message of peace during a time when almost all of America wanted nothing more than to blast the USSR and Cuba off the face of the planet. His show reflected his hopes and his dreams, as well as his own beliefs. It had deeper levels, and deeper meanings. LOST doesn’t. Its meanings simply jump through time, and barely go beneath the surface. They are pre-fabricated and rolled out only when they are needed.

“Star Trek” is the classroom, while LOST is the strip club. That’s what doesn’t impress me about Abrams, Cuse or Lindelof. They satisfy the senses, but do not engage the mind past any novel intelligence.

How many LOST fans will go out and read Slaughter House Five, or Grapes of Wrath, or, in some cases, the Bible? How many fans know that there are still witch-hunts going on in Africa(1)? Or that innocent Nigerians are being rounded up and shot for no good reason(2)?

Probably not too many; they’re all too busy being concerned about what’s going to happen next on LOST. If the media spawned by Abrams and his contemporaries are going to represent our generation in history, the least they could do is tell the truth. Entertainment is not a bad thing at all, and very rarely do writers ever try to sit down and magically produce a “phenomenon”, but as I sit and watch this show, and listen to Cuse, Lindelof, and Abrams spout off their inspirations for their material, it seems as though all they ever want is attention, and don't care how they get it.

Answers:

1. The lighthouse. It’s how Jacob kept watch over his “candidates” and brought them to the island. Check.

Bittersweet episode this week. That’s all. If it was a bit too bitter for some, then enjoy this cool article from a very unique LOST fan (3).

Ciao.


References:

1. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/21/world/africa/21gambia.html?_r=1&ref=africa

2. http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2010/02/2010298114949112.html

3. http://www.michaeljohngrist.com/2010/02/the-ruins-of-lost/

LOST---The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly: 6 Part 3

Sorry about the tardiness.

An intriguing sense to be had this week, as the “flash-sideways”(1) continue to unravel and we continue to watch them, chins in palms, yawning. Many thoughts and questions come to mind about the “sideways” universe, especially for Locke and the geeky-looking Ben Linus. Titillation grips me as I write this review as I got to watch one of my own LOST theories came true.

The Good:

1. Locke may not have his legs, but he’s about to get married to the one he’s always loved. His dad also seems to have returned to normal, and they have a good relationship. That was nice, albeit overshadowed by paralysis.

2. Even in the sideways reality, Benjamin Linus stills sucks at life.

3. The smokey-vision was an eerie effect, yet gives viewers a very child-like delight.

4. Seeing as though Kate’s name didn’t appear to be on Jacob’s cave, there is a possibility that Kate is either going to get phased out and booted from the Island, or dead by the end of season 6. Meaning she will no longer get in the way of things. Though I like her character, the writers have completely destroyed her lately.

The Bad:

1. The “sideways” universe is getting boring, fast. So now we get to watch the characters trounce around their regular, normal lives, either moaning like hell or getting extremely lucky? So far, this alternate reality has been almost a repeat of Season One, only slightly less interesting, as the elements that made season one so grippingly dramatic are now replaced with smiling pictures and “hey, I feel like I know you, weird huh?”’s.

2. The Numbers are Jacob’s doodles on a cave wall? This season’s main theme appears to be “heavy disappointment.”

The Ugly:

1. Though I never voiced this theory to anyone but myself, anyone who wishes the doubt the validity of my claim can do so without any retaliation from me; I predicted before season six started that Jack and Locke would forever remain on the island to take over the jobs of The Man in Black and Jacob; to balance out the forces of “black and white”(whatever that may mean symbolically) and guard the island until they found a replacement. Thus I thought that the entire reason they were even on that island was to be evaluated and prepared for taking over the job. While that theory hasn’t fully come true, nor will since Locke is officially dead now, I did kind of pat myself on the back when Un-Locke explained to Sawyer why Jacob had brought him there, seeing as though at least part of my theory was correct. I promise all of you that that theory was not taken from anyone else’s, though I’m sure others have come up with it. Whether you believe me is up to you. Frankly speaking, it seemed like the logical choice, judging by how often the survivors were tested. It almost seemed as if someone were preparing them, and often times the best way to get honest behavior out of someone is to keep them in the dark about why they’re being tested.

Purgatory:

1. The blonde kid. Just after we find out that Smokey has been the one morphing into all the apparitions on the island, another non-Smokey apparition suddenly decides to appear. Great.

Answers:

1. The numbers. Turns out they are Jacob’s way of using Google Calender. How dull. Check.

The ball got rolling a little faster this week, but I still felt as jet-lagged after this episode as I did after last week’s episode. Despite my bashing of it, LOST just isn’t the same without it’s intense mind-fucking. In the meantime, enjoy these other theories about the show from the sci-fi website i09.com. I call them LOST: The Stoner Theories(2).

Ciao.

References:

1. http://io9.com/5474095/go-ahead-and-tell-locke-what-he-cant-do-he-doesnt-mind

2. http://io9.com/5472967/the-secrets-behind-lost-our-50-best-theories

LOST---The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly: 6 Part 2

Last week I woke up as kind of a new man. LOST impressed me beyond just being able to keep my attention and keep me intrigued. I was highly excited for the first time since Season 2. The ending of the premiere made me sort of second guess myself, but I figured I’d wait until next week until I passed judgment on it. Well, it’s next week, and LOST is being a bitch again like it always fucking is.


The Good:

1. Nothing. Yeah, that’s right I fucking said it: nothing. Absolutely fucking nothing. Let me say it again: nothing. There wasn’t even humor. What’s-his-face (the Security Guard from Season 3) getting hit in the head again and then shot was all right, but that was more satisfying than humorous.

2. All right, so I started writing the “Bad” section before realizing there was actually WAS something pretty good; the part where Jack swallowed the pill was pretty fucking badass. There…there you go…something good.

The Bad:

1. Ethan Fucking Goodspeed’s character has run his course. Quit bringing him back. The only thing anybody remembers(or cares) about that guy is that he is an asshole, albeit in disguise.

2. Last season Jack’s character started getting messed up, what with his tendency to start conflict with anything and everything for no reason whatsoever, as well as his brief “New Locke” phase. This week’s episode proved that that mess is unsalvageable and that Jack’s idiotic character cannot be redeemed. That first “pill scene” between him and Dogen was complete and total bullshit, both in terms of writing and how it fits into the plot. I love how the writers are now realizing the many questions they have to answer in a short period of time and thus have started taking quicker, more full of shit-than-ever shortcuts. It never crossed Jack mind that maybe Dogen could be manipulating him using guilt? I thought Jack didn’t trust the Others. I thought Jack didn’t trust anything.

3. Claire as part of the bad guy brigade. Really? Seeing her wielding a shotgun made me laugh. I would sooner believe an 80 year old Deforest Kelley as a gun-wielding henchmen then Claire.

4. Apparently the only thing affecting people in the LAX Reality is the Island reality. Simply put: if I was a pregnant woman(god that would be ugly) who’s taxi just got hijacked by a screaming woman with a gun running from the police; a woman who then kicked me out onto the curb without my stuff in the middle of downtown Los Angeles, I doubt I would ever trust that woman again, much less get back in the cab with her while she is UNCUFFED. And the writers, of course, excuse this by saying “I just knew”, thus saying that because of their Island relationship(sounds like a Nicolas Sparks book), both knew the other was trustworthy. That, or the writers are deeply insulting the intelligence of their characters. Seeing as how the writers have done this before(1), this actually does not surprise me very much.

5. LOST, you insisted, and whined, and moaned all of last year that you wanted to be entirely about plot; and while some people abhorred(hated, reviled, detested) that idea, you said “fuck all” and stuck to it. You can’t go back now. This episode featured character development which, despite being very interesting and even moving, is something the writers chose to abandon once the characters were firmly established. And, while I feel as though it is never too late for anything, this is the last season and you have a lot of questions to answer. So stop trying to go backwards and just get on with it.

The Ugly:

1. It seems as though the stance on mainstream media has started to change recently. Nowadays, it has become more than obvious that video games, instead of “being brain pulverizing”, “violence-inspiring”, “as-bad-for-your-mental-health-as-Eminem-lyrics” trash, are now making kids and college students more intelligent(2). Recent studies, mainly if not all composed by Steven Johnson(including the video game study), are hypothesizing that television is also doing just that. Keep in mind, I said “hypothesizing”. Here are some(3) of those studies(4). While these studies do prove that television itself is getting smarter, that does not necessarily mean that the people watching them are getting any smarter. Cause and effect is a naturally occurring phenomenon in the universe, while television is controlled programming. Simply because one writes a smart show does not mean that its viewers will thus be more intelligent by watching it. It all comes down to what a person’s opinion of intelligence is. To me, problem solving is merely one form of intelligence, thus having shows like LOST, Alias, and Hill Street Blues exercise that part of the brain very well. The trouble with shows like this is that the different elements that the aforementioned articles highlight as signs of a smarter show are not different elements of the SHOW; they are merely different elements of the PLOT.

1. Many overlapping plot strands.

2. An unclear distinction between the major and minor plot strands.

3. A relatively large number of primary characters.

4. Moral ambiguity.

5. No narrative hand holding.

6. Non-linear action.

On paper, all of those elements would appear to make for a good all around show, but in execution they come as simply serving the plot. Example: LOST. LOST has many overall subplots, but they all connect to one gigantic plot that the show follows. The major and minor plot points of Lost, even when they switch from one to the other, still connect to one gigantic plot point. The primary characters go away and come back for reasons connecting to the main plot. The moral ambiguities of the characters: because of, and/or triggers more of, the plot. The purpose of no narrative hand-holding on Lost is to stretch out the plot. All non-linear action on the show relates back to the central plot in some way. Now if one is strict to the teachings of Aristotle, then everything serving the plot is just fine, as Aristotle believed plot to be the Chuck Norris of Grecian Theatre(5). However, history has proven that plot need not be the master facet of theatricality. In today’s world, any television show can use merely one of the “Oceanic Six” up there as the central facet of the show and be successful. Many have tried, most have failed.

2. Anybody analyzing television ratings, with enough ego to fill the Grand Canyon, will tell you that shows fail because “It doesn’t have what it takes” or “the numbers speak for themselves” or some other generic insult that sounds like it’s from the days of the Bush Administration. When judging a show as bad, ratings are the first things broadcast networks look at. Yet plenty of shows have been haled as “ground-breaking” and “amazing” by critics and fans alike, but have barely lasted one, desperation-filled breath in the mainstream media’s ratings chart(“Arrested Development”, “Firefly”, “Miracles”). Most, if not all, of these shows center around character development; the premise for “Firefly” was “Nine people looking into the blackness of space and seeing nine different things”(6); “Arrested Development” survived for three seasons on merely the personalities of the characters within it. Yet character development is more than likely the reason why they failed; apparently, people don’t keep people’s attention. Audiences more than likely excused these shows as “going through the motions” after certain events. In short, nothing really happened on them. Audiences sit down and prepare for something to happen plot-wise, but are not rewarded, and thus change the channel.

I don’t know why these shows fail, and my beliefs on it are just theories, but when is mainstream media going to change to a less caring mode? Okay, so you only have 3 million people watching it while other networks have a decisively less intelligent show that is garnering 10 million. Big fucking deal. If new television shows are eventually going to need all six of those elements up there simply to be demanded by audiences, then we could potentially be seeing the biggest downgrade in the output of thoughtful new television shows in history; and more shows designed to keep us on the other end of a string(not to mention the fact that mainstream film has already started to become more like television). Also, seeing as though LOST executes the “Oceanic Six” to high success, just imagine what it is going to be like when other writers try to take that formula and make it “newer” and “better”.

Answers:

1. Claire is alive and well. Check.

2. Everybody on the Island is back in the same timeline, as [further]evidenced by the abandoned Dharma Center for Brainwashed Cat Poop buildings.

A rather ridiculous episode; let’s hope for a better one next week.

Ciao.


References:

1. http://www.buddytv.com/articles/lost/harold-perrineau-upset-with-lo-20058.aspx

2.“Everything Bad Is Good for You: How Today’s Popular Culture is Actually Making Us Smarter.” Johnson, Steven.

3. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/24/magazine/24TV.html

4. http://hubpages.com/hub/8-Television-Shows-Scientifically-Proven-To-Make-Watchers-Smarter-DVD

5. “The Poetics.” Aristotle. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poetics_(Aristotle)

6. http://jam.canoe.ca/Television/TV_Shows/F/Firefly/2002/07/22/734323.html

LOST---The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly: Season 6

::Lights dim as a proscenium curtain that says “Lost Season 6 Reviews” rises. The audience of 100,001 hushes, shushing each other violently as they settle into their seats. In the darkness a row of trumpets start playing a grand fanfare. As the fanfare crescendos, more rows of trumpets join it, until the stage is filled with the sounds of majestic horns, as if on some sacred battlefield. Lights scan up and down the stage, revealing various silhouettes of LOST like Hurley, the four-toed statue, Locke and Ben. Over the speakers, we here one-liners and dramatic moments from the past, both on the show and off it. They echo from wall to wall: “Don’t tell me what I can’t do!” “You hate Lost!” “Doing what I always do…surviving.” “Walt!” “Lost is one of the most amazing shows I’ve ever seen!” “Dharma Center for Homosexual Beekeepers” “We have to go back, Kate!” This continues for five minutes, then ten, then even twenty, holding the audience together as their knuckles turn white from clinging too hard to their seats. Suddenly, the comments die off, and the sound of rapid, foam-mouthed monkeys are thrown over the speakers. On-stage, silhouettes of monkey poo being flung from one side of the stage to the other can be seen. As this gets worse and worse, the monkey sounds are replaced with the sounds of humans arguing over Lost, but the poo flinging continues. The fanfare reaches its Olympian peak, and a gigantic Dharma curtain drops at the front of the stage. Seconds later, a live cannon fires somewhere off-stage and the Dharma curtain explodes into a thousand burning pieces. As if on cue, a sick guitar solo now starts rocking the stage---::


All right, all right, sorry, sorry. I just wanted to have a little more fun.

Welcome to Season 6 everybody, and what a Season it looks like it’s going to be. The magical Island of Lost: filled with exotic wonders, ancient “monsters”, all kinds of different humans who want to kill each other, and the best entertainment gimmicks beaten to death that money can buy. Let’s get started.

The Good:

1. It’s the Others! No, really, it is this time! I mean it; it’s the Others! Finally! Okay, so they weren’t seriously called “the Others”, but how many more groups of people could possibly be living on this island? So it’s the Others!

2. Charlie! And Boone(I liked him)!

3. Hurley with a gun is just funny.

4. The first ten minutes of this premiere were nothing short of breathtakingly brilliant. These writers may get on my nerves all too frequently, but that does not mean that they do not have their moments, and even their minutes and hours, of solid beauty. The opening scene on the plane introduced the new "reality" twist as if it was a ship in a bottle. These people almost appear to be happier, even though we know they're not. One almost cannot judge their actions in this timeline. It was very relaxing. And let’s face it, even the sharpest critics of this show had to smile and feel completely awesome when the camera went into the sea and we saw all the island’s stuff sitting there covered in seaweed.

5. J.J. Abrams has taught these writers well(or perhaps they taught themselves, who knows). As I said back in the “That 70’s Show” review, structure is a building block that, while not the most important thing, can easily make or break a show. While LOST may be filled with all sorts of malfunctioning gimmicks and gadgets, the show has managed to maintain a rigid structure. I may not personally agree with what is included in the structure, but certain aspects of it always strike a positive chord in me. Each season is fantastically different and has its own unique qualities. Plus, we always seem to meet a new group of people every time: Season 1 was the survivors, Season 2 was the Tailies, Season 3 was Ben’s People, Season 4 was the freighter, and Season 5 was the Dharma Seagull Shit and You Program(oh come on, did you really think I was going to convince myself to get rid of the Dharma names?).

The Bad:

1. Same old “carrot-on-a-stick” shit. Come on, people, enough with the mystery and suspense gimmicks. You don’t necessarily have to give us the answers all at once, but adding new mystery-on-top-of-new-mystery like zits-on-top-of-zits is getting old! And fucking boring! This is your final fucking season, so stop feeding us the same bullshit you always do. I stand with my girlfriend, who stated the following after watching only the first hour of the premiere: “this show would be more exciting if something normal happened.” I get the feeling that the writers decided to cancel their own show not as a gift to themselves, but because they knew they couldn’t keep bullshitting people for too much longer. I know J.J. Abrams and his associates like to take one mouth-watering gimmick and beat the shit out of it until its blood and fluids saturate the Earth’s crust(see: “Cloverfield”), but now it’s just starting to get pathetic.

2. Jacob lives! Oh wait he doesn’t. Okay then, Jacob lives…on! You know, on most shows, a character who dies and then comes back as some sort of supernatural apparition is exciting, but on this show it's just kind of a buzzkill.

Purgatory:

1. The Others. Yes, I am glad we know who the Others are now, but now we have to see what they bring to the table and if its worth anything.

2. It appears as though the primary characters are now “lost” in reality. While I find this idea interesting, I find it interesting with a grain of salt, and have deep-seeded fears that this idea is no more than a repeat of last season’s “off-the-island” storyline which resulted in---surprise!---them realizing a greater purpose and then going back to the island. Plus, I think we all know why things are subtly different in this new reality: the affect of no-Jacob.

3. Darth Smoke Monster: while part of me is generally thrilled to see the old classic of good vs. evil starting to emerge, I’m not sure if such a story can work well on this show, what with all the moral ambiguities in…well, everything.

4. The writers keep using time travel to solve all their problems. Only for so much longer, boys, only for so much longer. You're lucky this is the last season you have to write.

The Ugly:

1. Most of my lovely, well-dressed, and NERF-sword-wielding critics liked to paint me as a LOST-hater last season(creepy right?....sorry, bad joke), mainly because the only places in the entire world to find reviews like this are places like this website(1) and this website(2). Let me clear any confusion up now, again for the critics as well as new people: I like LOST. Though I liked seasons one and two way better than the “gripping” and “Mind-blowing” seasons 3-5, I am very interested to see how everything works out in the end, and am impressed with how the show is structurally put together. That being said, it has its flaws, and I’m not talking termite-size flaws, I’m talking Death Star-size flaws. Keep in mind, these are just my opinion of the show; what I see when I look at that screen, mixed and cooked with observations of mass media and observations of the people who watch/consume it. It is not meant to represent any universal truths, and research will be used only when i feel it is needed. It is up to you, the audience, to trust me of your own free will. I promise you my conclusions are 90 percent based on what I observe, and I welcome any and all challenges to them. I have no intentions of trying to mislead or discourage anybody from watching the show.

2. J.J. Abrams is back, ladies and gentlemen. I can’t remember where I read (though I swear this was on Lostpedia somewhere) that Mr. Abrams’s name might be removed from the credits in Season 6 as executive producer, but I know I read it. Nevertheless, at the end of the opening credits, there he is, as executive producer. Now, some people like Spielberg, the Coen brothers, and Mel Gibson attach their names to films by being listed as the executive producer, even though they do not contribute anything to the film; hence why movies tend to have as many “executive producers” as Tiger Woods has mistresses. Television is different; the executive producers of TV shows are usually the creators of the show(3). As seasons go on, they step back from directly contributing the show to an even better(or much worse) position, executive producer/person-who-approves-the-writers’-creative-decisions(4). To all those who told me that J.J. Abrams stopped contributing back in Season 1 and/or 2(they didn’t know exactly), executive producer counts as contributing; therefore please welcome Mr. Abrams’s presence back to these reviews. I promise he won’t get brutalized as much or as bad as DL and CC may potentially be.

Answers:

This is a new section I’m going to start in direct honor of Season 6. As more and more questions from seasons’ past begin to get answered, I will keep track of them here. Bear in mind, the writers have a long way go(5). Also, if anyone reading this confirms an answer that I miss, in any episode, please inform me of it.

Season Six, Episode 1:

1. The Man in Black is Smokey the Monster…and pretty much every other apparition that has ever appeared to the Losties on the Island. Check.

2. The Others. Yes, that is verbally unconfirmed but as I said: how many more other societies could there possibly be on this Island? Check.

3. The ankh in the guitar case is a message from Jacob. Not a huge answer but an answer nonetheless. Check.

All around, a B+ opening episode, which is a gigantic step up from last season’s D- opener. ABC says the time for questions is now over and the time of answers has begun. I hope they’re telling the truth about that, because I highly doubt these writers can answer every question they’ve come up with in the past. That being said, I am excited, intrigued, and ready to see what this season has to offer. Let’s go!

Ciao

Reference list:

1. http://thetvaddict.com/2008/06/30/why-i-hate-lost/

2. http://www.chrisdiclerico.com/2006/10/14/i-hate-lost-an-epiphany/

3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_producer

4. http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/executive-producer4.htm

5. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/29/lost-unanswered-questions_n_442135.html

Sites that are vainly similar to my efforts here:

1. http://www.slate.com/id/2242745/entry/2242746/

2. http://www.lostreview.com/