tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-84195272024-03-14T01:52:08.051-07:00A New Yorker in HollywoodThoughts, reviews and analysis of pop culture items by a pondering lass who lives and works in Hollywood, but was born and raised in New York City.
<p>
Query or Comment?<br>
Email me at:<br>
<img src="http://static.flickr.com/23/90285212_d2dee0853b_m.jpg">Kalindahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18379135879333989581noreply@blogger.comBlogger270125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419527.post-1162318142233362452006-10-31T10:03:00.000-08:002006-10-31T10:09:02.266-08:00Happy Halloween!Happy Halloween to one and all of you! In celebration of this spooky holiday, I leave you with this <a href = "http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ll8Qm8yDj-8" target = "_blank"> thrilling video </a>. May you eat lots of candy, watch horror flicks and carve jackolanterns. Also, here's a fun <a href = "http://us.mms.com/us/dark/index.jsp" target = "_blank"> game </a> that will test your horror film knowledge...<br /><br /><img src = "http://static.flickr.com/105/284833510_f3312116da_m.jpg">Kalindahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18379135879333989581noreply@blogger.com12tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419527.post-1162076733864761042006-10-28T15:57:00.000-07:002006-10-28T16:20:42.666-07:00A Film Trifecta Weekend Part II: Marie AntoinetteLast Saturday night found me at “Marie Antoinette”, written and directed by Sofia Coppola. Truth be told, I was expecting to hate this film, but I didn’t --not at all. I respect Coppola as a woman and a filmmaker, but on a personal level, I’m not a huge fan of her work. I found, “Lost in Translation” to be largely overrated. While I appreciated the hip soundtrack, and colorful imagery, and found Bill Murray’s performance to be quite charming, I could not abide the protagonist, Charlotte (Scarlett Johanssen). Friends of mine rallied on her behalf, touting her search for answers, and justifying her malaise with life, but I found her attitude to be asinine. She was a perfectly healthy, attractive, smart, articulate woman, who was all “woe is me” because her husband had a busy professional career, and she was still searching out hers. All her longing gazes out her hotel room window, and pensive stares at the Japanese cultural phenomenons surrounding her, left me feeling annoyed; I just couldn’t muster up any sympathy for her plight.<br /><br />There were similar moments of quiet thoughtfulness in “Marie Antoinette”. Only instead of gazing out at an urban sprawl, Marie daydreamed out of the window of her horse drawn carriage. Like “Lost in Translation”, “Marie Antoinette” was a young woman’s coming of age story. But unlike LIT, I actually thought Marie had something to feel gloomy about. True she lived in the royal opulence of Versailles, but she was also forced into a political marriage at the age of fifteen, constantly harassed about producing an heir for the nation, and forced to abide a silly amount of pomp and circumstance on a regular basis. <br /><br />Sure, I get it, “poor little rich girl” right? But though she lived in the lap of luxury, while peasants starved to death, (which was of course horribly unfair and indicative of the pitfalls of a royal system), –it wasn’t her fault, and her emotional trials were real. Coppola adapted the screenplay from a recent biography of Antoinette, so it seems that historical accuracies were of importance to her. The film had a very realistic tone to it –it looked like everything was shot with natural light, and there was a rawness and grittiness that served up an interesting contrast to the stunning sets and magnificent costumes. For if Marie Antoinette was anything, it was certainly visually impressive. Upon leaving the theatre, my friend said that it was like reading a magazine for an extended period of time, and indeed I felt a bit like I had just swallowed up a September issue of VOGUE in two and a half hours. Kirsten Dunst must have worn, literally, at least a hundred different costumes during the course of the film, while sampling two hundred pairs of shoes. <br /><br />Adding to the sensation of a visual feast, were the numerous pastries featured in the film. Marie had a tremendous fondness for them, though the film posits that the infamous line of “let them eat cake” was merely a vicious rumor. Whatever pastry chef was hired to design the bevy of sweets consumed by the royal party should win an Academy Award. I got a sugar rush just from watching the film, and my mouth watered at the sumptuous raspberry tarts, strawberry lady fingers, pink frosted cookies, and cherry red cakes. There were a multitude of pretty and pink montages in the film featuring, dresses, shoes, sweets and champagne. I would wager that every twelve year old girl who sees this movie is currently obsessed with it. <br /> <br />The 80’s rock soundtrack added a further layer to this historical portrayal of teen angst, and somehow, worked, even as it was interspersed with the different operatic pieces in the film. You definitely have to give kudos to Ms. Coppola for having her own style and sticking to it. She made many deliberate choices with this film, and the end result was a tone which was disarmingly girly. But for all of it’s refreshing auteurism, there wasn’t much story to go by here. There was little greater historical context in the film, and it insulated itself primarily to the palace grounds, and in turn, the internal grievances and joys of Marie Antoinette. There was not a lot of traditional plotting going on – storylines were brought up but never resolved, characters faded into the woodwork for no apparent reason, and many a scene was put to celluloid merely for the sake of themselves. For all its prettiness, Marie Antoinette was like a meandering walk without a destination. While Kirsten Dunst imbued the character with an earnest sweetness and innocence, I wasn’t sure what sort of journey I had watched her take. Her life endured changes and woes, but the overall narrative stroke, seemed to imply merely, that like anyone else, she had the capacity to acclimate. Though the film spent a lot of time focused on the unconsummated marriage between her and Louis XVI, she finally fathered his child, we saw little private interaction between them. They continued to have more children, but the context under which they were conceived was left unexplored. Marie’s affair with the dashing solider was also left largely unresolved. Did her husband know about it? What did he think of it? What ever happened to the solider? Why did their affair end? How did she feel about it ending? I would have liked to have seen some of these things played out on screen. Sometimes, you need more than a thoughtful pretty face fogging up a window pane to melancholy music.<br /><br />(Forthcoming "The Prestige"...)<br /><br /><img src = "http://static.flickr.com/85/281702422_f2580f2ded.jpg">Kalindahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18379135879333989581noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419527.post-1161755363547070072006-10-24T21:46:00.000-07:002006-10-24T22:49:23.650-07:00A Film Trifecta Weekend (Spoilers Galore) Part IThis weekend, after what seemed like an eternal void at the cinema, I took it upon myself to go see, not one, not two, but THREE films! <br /><br />I’ll start from the ground up.<br /><br />Friday evening, I went to see the Grudge 2, which currently has a whopping <a href = http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/grudge_2/ target = “_blank”> rotten tomatoes </a> tomameter rating of 8%. I believe that Stephen Hunter of the <a href = http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/13/AR2006101301811.html target = “_blank> Washington Post </a> said it best, when he described the Grudge 2 as “a movie so bewildering and impenetrable that I believe it siphoned off a good 40 IQ points.”<br /><br />I’ve certainly done my fair share of ranting here about the bevy of poor quality horror films that we’ve seen in the last few years. But, at the risk of hyperbole and redundancy, I currently hold the following to be true: The Grudge 2 defies logic and coherency to the point of oblivion. There is no narrative through line. There is no continuity. (There is no Dana, there is only Zool). What there is, however, is a multitude of shot after shot of swarming straight black hair overtaking characters at random and filling up the screen for about ninety minutes or so. I didn’t know whether to laugh, cry or scream.<br /><br />The plot(s) is as follows. American girl Aubrey (Amber Tamblyn) flies to Tokyo, at the bidding of her mother, to collect her sister, Karen (Sarah Michelle Gellar), who has had a nervous breakdown. If you saw the first Grudge, (which was mediocre at best) you will recall Karen, as the main protagonist, who found herself drawn into the violent web of mystery surrounding “the most haunted house in Tokyo”. After learning the secret of the house, (a husband murdered his wife and child in a jealous rage, after learning she was in love with another man) Karen was confronted with its “evil” and attempted to burn it down, killing her boyfriend in the process.<br /><br />Cut back to the Grudge 2. Aubrey shows at the Japanese hospital to find her sister seriously disturbed and spouting nonsense. Her sister, then promptly falls to her death, forced off the hospital roof by a ghost (the wife in the house who was killed by her raging husband). Aubrey, scared and alone, befriends a young male journalist who has been tracking the story of this mysterious house. Immediately they begin conversing in cryptic meaningless phrases like “I’m afraid.” “I must find out the truth.” And “How do we stop it?” i.e. they speak without actually saying anything at all. But that’s OK, because thankfully we have two entirely independent plotlines, with which to bang our heads on the theatre seat backs by. <br /><br />The second plotline revolves around three teenage school girls (with scandalously short uniform skirts to match), who go into the haunted house as –a joke, or –to “check it out.” Their motivation is ultimately unclear and irrelevant. Two of the girls are popular, but the third is not, and as horror film procedure would have it, the two prettier, socially successful girls, force the dowdy girl into the closet. While in the closet, the dowdy girl gets stuck and has contact with the ghost of the house. Unbeknownst to them, the two “pretty” girls were exposed to the evil of the apparition as well, and so all three end up being haunted by Miss broken neck long hair(the ghost). <br /><br />The third plot line is perhaps the most baffling of all. Back across the big pond, in Chicago, Illinois, we observe the happenings of an American family. A father with a teenage daughter and pre-teen son, has just invited his girlfriend to move into their apartment. We become acquainted with the cheery cheerleading teen, and her Lolita neighbor friend, as well as the general family dynamics. Pre teen boy resents Dad’s girlfriend, Dad’s girlfriend is nervous about making good with the kids, and so on. One night the preteen boy spies a dark figure being led down the hall by two of his neighbors. After that, things start to get weird. People aren’t acting like themselves, and strange visions and sounds make themselves apparent. What on earth could be happening to this family? Unfortunately, you never end up giving a good God damn.<br /><br />Now keep in mind that the three different plot lines I’ve just summarized, are all intercut with each other willy nilly. The end result is a film that has the continuance of a furniture building manual from Ikea. Characters die, others vanish into the ether, pulled out of the space time fabric by the ghost, while others try to “fight” against the rage. One particularly bizarre subplot involved Aubrey tracking down the ghost’s mother to speak to her about her daughter. It is there we learn via grainy flashback, that when her daughter was a child, she used to perform exorcisms, and force her daughter to swallow the evil spirits. Why would she do such a heinous thing, you might ask? Who knows, I doubt if the filmmaker himself does. Nevermind the fact that this woman is spilling out her deepest darkest secrets in perfect english to Joan of Arcadia. Let’s not even bother to try and explain that. <br /><br />What I want to know is --why would the writers throw in this haphazard factoid to basically turn the concept of the entire franchise on its head? Impossible to say. Isn’t the whole point, as indicated by the title, that when someone is killed in a horrible rage, that “rage” haunts things forever? When did the franchises M.O. become that little girls who witness exorcisms have spiritual baggage? <br /><br />The big “reveal” at the end of the film, is that the dowdy school girl who is tormented by the ghost in Japan, is brought back home to her parents in Chicago. Voila! She lives in the very same apartment building as the American family, and was in fact the same mysterious figure wearing an oversized hoodie that the little boy saw walk down the hall. The problem was that, this reveal didn’t serve much purpose. Not only was it obvious and predictable, but it failed to provide context or even link all the storylines, which is what well done reveals typically too. It was the missing piece to a puzzle that still didn’t create a cohesive image. The reveal in The Grudge 2 was a protracted justification for tying together two halves that didn’t make a whole.<br /><br />There were definitely some frightening moments in the film, and I probably jumped more than I’d like to admit. One of the most disturbing moments for me was when the perky cheerleader popped over to her friend’s apartment, who had fallen under the grudge’s curse. The friend proceeded to chug an entire gallon of milk, and then regurgitate it into the same container. Icky. Also, for all its unoriginality at this point, I still get creeped out my the staccato movements of the ghost with her double jointed limbs and snapped neck.<br /><br />These movies are most disappointing to me because while they capitalize on clever concepts, conjure up horrific images and moments, and are pretty adept at creating an atmosphere, they lack the quality of story and characters to see them through. In terms of setting a mood, and establishing a visual style, Japanese writer/director Takashi Shimizu clearly knows what he’s doing. But what’s particularly incendiary about The Grudge 2 is that not only does it fall into this category, but it’s nearly impossible to watch. It’s a confounding viewing experience, where one is denied the simple viewer’s pleasure of getting lost in a story --because there truly isn’t one. It is a nightmarish assembly of non-sequesters, a ninety minute music video that’s set to creepy violin tunes. And let’s be honest –there’s a reason why videos are only three or four minutes long at most….<br /><br />(forthcoming Marie Antoinette…)Kalindahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18379135879333989581noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419527.post-1160850145934130162006-10-14T11:21:00.000-07:002006-10-14T11:22:25.966-07:00The New Yorker remerges (for the time being) a little LOST but not worse for the wear...It’s been a long time folks. And I can’t say I haven’t missed this little party called blogging because I have. Now, let’s get down to business.<br /><br />1) LOST<br /><br />Two episodes into the new (third) season my head is spinning and I barely recognize the show. Probably, because at times, it feels like a COMPLETELY different show. New characters, new locations, new scenarios, new storylines. I supposed that’s all well, good, and expected for any intelligent and creatively done show that evolves over seasons, but something is amiss. That wonderful vibe that they captured in the pilot, and first season, and less so but still in the second season is gone. A bunch of strangers from all different walks of life who are banded together under the same banner of “let’s not get eaten by polar bears” and “lets get off this crazy island” and “what the hell is going on in this crazy island.” That was something special, and in the construct of LOST it felt new and refreshing.<br /><br />Cut to this season. The season premiere only dealt with three of our characters, Jack, Kate and Sawyer. Now I love Sawyer, and Jack is alright, though teetering on the bland side, but Kate seems to have descended even further into the territory of the vulnerable hot piece of ***. (On a side note, how Raiders of the Lost Arc was it when she came out in that dress and sat down in front of Henry Gale and the full spread of food. It was Marion and Belloq all over again, though not as classy or exciting.) But I missed the rest of the castaways and that feeling of “teamwork” as they all worked together to solve one problem or another. But let me back up a minute here. It goes without saying that the teaser for the premiere was meant to be another shocker, like last year’s reveal of Desmond in the Hatch. And truth be told, I was surprised by it. I didn’t expect in the slightest that the “earthquake” was actually the Oceanic flight plummeting down from the sky. Nor that the seemingly idyllic community was located on THE island. It was jaw dropping to be sure. But a variable had changed for me –I didn’t care as much. I didn’t really care because I knew, or at least strongly suspected, that the reason behind this village, the rationale of the Others and their motives in going after the survivors, none of that, was going to be explained succinctly for at least another I don’t know, one to two seasons, --if that. It’s like the Russian dolls that stack inside one another seamlessly without end, until finally you get to the last wooden figurine, and realize, that it’s only a smaller version of what you started with, and is hollow on the inside.<br /><br />I guess that’s my biggest fear for LOST. That they’re never going to answer the questions, and that they’re only to going to keep on generating more and more, defying logic and rationale at every turn. Let’s take a look at for instance, last season, when Michael was brought to the Others shantytown, where they lived in little tents and dressed in rags. Later, Michael would lead Jack, Kate and co. back down there, and they would attempt to enter yet another hatch which, as it turns out, didn’t exist. The metal doors merely masked a granite wall. In this week’s episode, one of the Others mentions to Henry Gale hurriedly, (in what I believe to be a huge writer’s oops!), “But they found the decoy village!” Gale responds, ever stolidly, “That’s exactly what we wanted them to do.” <br /><br />I think I actually laughed out loud at that moment. Really? It’s exactly what you wanted them to do? Why? So Hurley could turn back and tell the other survivors what he’d seen here. And what kind of an impression would that make? “Hey dudes. It looked like they had a Hatch, but actually, --looks like it was fake or something…oh yeah and they took Jack, Kate and Sawyer too.” First of all, Hurley would be in a panic about the fact that his friends were taken, --the least thing on his mind would be the fake door. And even if he did discuss the “fake hatch” opening with the other survivors, that doesn’t necessarily reveal the village as a “decoy village.” I can’t deny that I’m curious as to the possible valid explanation for the “decoy” village. I’m interested to see what they come up with, because it sure seems like an awful lot of work on the part of the Others, towards an end which remains a mystery.<br /><br />After watching the first two episodes in this season, the question that resounds with me is, is this season really going to become about human behavioral studies and experiments? Them trying to break Jack’s psychological resolve, and manipulating Sawyer and Kate into getting romantically involved, only to play them each off against one another in some bizarre sort of love triangle? Whatever it is, I hope they at least cut to the chase, because watching Kate and Sawyer break rocks, even under the threat of electric shock? Not interesting. Also, it was not at all a shocking reveal that Kate and Sawyer were being “watched” by Henry Gale via monitors when they were speaking to one another at night back in their cages. Of course they’re being monitored, that shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone at this point. If Sawyer and Kate themselves don’t realize that, then they are idiots. <br /><br />In this week’s episode, I liked Sun and Jin’s flashback, in part because it actually gave closure and answers to their storylines, and also because it continued to give more depth to their characters. I thought it was great that Sun shot the woman on the yacht, I definitely didn’t expect it. I liked the idea that the Others are so sure they know the survivors, and yet Sun proved them wrong. What I did find disappointing was Sayid’s “plan”; it made no sense. So Sayid hoped to start and fire and attract the Others via smoke, so that he could kill them, and then hopefully somehow learn where Jack had been taken? This plan also entailed “tricking” Jin because once Sayid started the fire it would be “too late” to turn back, (Wha? Why?). Not only that, but Sun was left by herself, on the boat, which was a good two hundred yards away. Sure he told her where the gun was but if he (or Jin) was really concerned about her safety they’d have her stay close. Even if in the past LOST has dragged its feet in divulging the island’s secrets, it has always typically been good at creating interesting episodic action and adventure plots. But the plotting of some of this second episode at times just felt lazy and sloppy. One of the last scenes of the episode where Henry Gale comes into Jack, felt particularly so. It’s already been made clear that the Others know what’s going on in the outside world, they have contact and communication with it, --hence how they know so much about the survivors. So for Henry Gale to come out and recite the occurrences of the past two months in 2004, was no real surprise. (Also, the Boston Red Sox winning the world series clip/gag is OLD) Then there was more of the classic cagey talk, where words are coming out of the characters mouths, but in effect, NOTHING is being said. (Paraphrasing) Henry Gale: If you cooperate with us, we will help you get home. Jack: Cooperate with what? Henry Gale: We’ll tell you when the time is right. Grrrrrrrrr. I’ll bet you will Henry.<br /><br />I know what some of you are thinking. “Stop complaining, and just stop watching it!” But I can’t –for several reasons. It’s like the boyfriend that your friends tell you to dump, but you just can’t let go, because deep down you know you still have feelings for him. I love LOST. Or at least I did. I’ve been disillusioned for sure, cheated by it, annoyed with it. But I can’t let go, or at least I’m not ready to. I still care enough about these characters that I plan to tune in to see what happens next, and I do want to see how they wrap everything up. But my care is dwindling, and never more so than with the start of this season. I’d like a little payoff please. A little light shed on the truth, and answers that don’t feel like more questions. I’m frustrated and I want my old show back. <br /><br />I miss Danielle Rousseau.<br /><br />Heroes review forthcoming….Kalindahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18379135879333989581noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419527.post-1152052398706729102006-07-04T15:32:00.000-07:002006-07-04T15:33:18.723-07:00The New Yorker Returns (Along with Superman)In this media blitz era of comic book characters and superheroes, an interesting trend has come about in Hollywood: the revival of the dead Superhero franchise. Last summer, Batman Begins was the official advent of this phenomenon, and though it was hard for me to swallow any other vision besides that of Tim Burton…art deco Gotham, Keaton and all; it was ultimately hard to disagree that the film had a new and fresh take on the Batman universe. Where there was once glamour puss photographer/journalist Vicki Vale, there was now social adjudicator Rachel Dawes. Where there was once a sleek, sculpted Batmobile, there was now a rough converted military tank. Not only was the scenery different, (new Gotham, new Bat cave), but mythology changed as well. The Joker didn’t kill Bruce’s parents –a poor underprivileged soul did. New themes and new plot lines were developed for this new retelling that were unique to Christopher Nolan’s interpretation, and weren’t at all derived from the previous incarnation of the film series.<br /><br />Not so for Superman Returns. From the very beginning, it seemed that the Superman franchise wished to connect itself to the success of the former films –at least the two good ones. Superman Returns purportedly takes place between Superman II and Superman III. Whereas the new Batman film wanted to wipe the slate totally clean after the calamitous Batman and Robin, the new Superman film wanted us to forget the lackluster Superman III, and embarrassing Superman IV: The Quest for Peace, while honoring the legacy invented by the first two films directed by Richard Donner and Richard Lester respectively. <br /><br />Superman Returns was one big giant homage by Bryan Singer to one of his favorite movies of all time. It was almost like a fan film, albeit one with an exquisite production value. He seemed to make it no secret that he wanted to capture the flavor of the original film. After all, he cast Hollywood newcomer Brandon Routh, who is in both appearance and voice, incredibly reminiscent of the late, great Christopher Reeve, and the similarities didn’t end there. The villain in Superman Returns is Lex Luthor, who was played brilliantly by Gene Hackman in the original two films, and given a funny, but very similar (though not as spectacular if you ask me) turn by Kevin Spacey in this film. Instead of Valerie Perrine’s Miss Tesmacher, there was Parker Posey’s Kitty Kowalski –but again, the roles were very similar: they both had an ambiguous romantic relationship with Lex, they both swooned at Superman’s charming good looks. And they both felt guilt at what Lex was planning, and did their part to try and stop him.<br /><br />I know, I know, I shouldn’t be comparing, right? But if you don’t want me to compare the two films, don’t strike as many of the same beats as the original aye? Like using the same sound design for the “voices” that Superman can hear in his head courtesy of his superhuman auditory sense. (which is admittedly a simple, though great sound effect.) Or the use of Marlon Brando’s image and voice as Jor-el, or the moment where Superman and Lois soar through the air together, or Lex’s speech about creating a new coast and prime real estate, or the use of John Williams original score…this wasn’t a reinvention, it was a remake! And that’s OK. But even as a revival, I think Warner Brothers and Singer would have been wiser to do a little more remodeling. If they’re just going to spout out a couple more of these without a big change in tone or concept, I have a funny feeling it may start to get old, and feel done, rather quickly.<br /><br />Nevertheless, let it be said that I enjoyed parts of this film immensely. I saw Superman Returns last Tuesday night, at the first possible screening at the Grauman’s Chinese theatre in Hollywood with a packed and raucous audience. Rumor has it that Bryan Singer, the man of the hour, was there as well. It was impossible not to enjoy the film in this crowd. They were cheering, laughing, and hooting at every turn, and I couldn’t think of a better group to see it with then the one there that night. <br /><br />For all the teasing I throw out about Bryan Singer and his Blue Tights Network and questionable history of photo shoots, the man is undeniably talented. He is truly a visual artist and there were some absolutely breath taking shots in this film. The various shots of Superman hovering above earth, with the celestial galaxies surrounding him were gorgeous, the sequence when he takes Lois up in the air, and the scenes of his flying around Metropolis were stunning. One thing that can be said about comparing the original ’78 film to this one is that the capacity for special FX has grown tremendously…and it shows. As in the first Spiderman, there was a shot or too where Supes looked a little rubbery, but overall I was agape at how good some of the action sequences looked, (the plane sequence was cool) as well as his flying of course. I LOVED that shot where the bullet hits his eye, and crumples. I also thought that Singer’s visuals managed to capture the sensibilities of comic book art, while remaining cinematic. As I watched certain shots and set ups whiz by, I could picture what the comic frames would look like in my head. The overhead underwater shot of Lois, Richard and Jason pounding on the porthole of Lex’s boat as it plummeted under water was one of several of these moments. <br /><br />Speaking of Richard, Lois’ fiancé, portrayed by James Marsden –I liked him. Marsden handled the role well, with what he had to work with, but beyond that, I liked the way his character was drawn. I liked the fact that he was a normal genuine guy, who was naturally a little jealous of Superman, but was hardly malicious about it. The love triangle that developed between Lois, Superman, and Richard was a good one, because it actually made for Lois having a hard choice. There is no convention that I hate more in Hollywood films, than when the leading lady (or man) is seriously dating or about to marry someone who is a complete a**hole. Then the romantic lead gets to swoop in and shake them to their senses about what a complete imbecile they’ve been in love with this whole time. It is the stupidest, most trite and most ridiculous convention ever. But since Richard is actually a decent guy, Lois faces a crisis of faith instead of an easy decision. I thought this was a good choice on the part of the screenwriters. I also liked the inclusion of “the kid,” Jason. His presence not only upped the stakes between the Lois/Richard/Superman dynamic tremendously, but he also created a nice mirror for the relationship that Superman-Kalel had with his own father, Jor-El. I liked the whole “father becomes the son, becomes the father” thematic motif that ran through the film. I also thought that the filmmakers were wise in only having Jason perform one “superhuman” stunt. Having him suddenly and literally fly into action would have been too much, but having him use his strength to save himself and his mother only once was also a clever way of ultimately revealing who his real father was. I have to say for me, the saddest/cutest moment of the film was when Jason showed his mother, Lois, the drawing he made detailing, “Superman, Daddy, Mommy, Me” --this poor child is in for a rude awakening.<br /><br />I’m not typically a big fan of Kate Bosworth, but I thought she nailed Lois Lane as a smart, bookish, romantic type. I liked the fact that they tried to make Bosworth look a bit mousy (as possible as it is to make Kate Bosworth look mousy…), because the idea for Lois has always been that Supes, who could have any woman in the world, doesn’t go for runway model, but for an earnest, quirky, news reporter. The only thing that struck me about Bosworth, and Routh as well for that matter, is that they seemed a bit young in their respective roles. Christopher Reeve was twenty six when he took on the role, and Margot Kidder was thirty, but both channeled more maturity on screen than the twenty six year old Routh and twenty three year old Bosworth. Bosworth’s age in particular troubled her role, because she was made to be Pulitzer prize winning, established career woman with a five year old child. At twenty three? I don’t think so… As much as Routh was a ringer for Reeve, I do think he was a good casting choice on Singer’s part. It was important to get an unknown in the role, and I thought he brought a novel and endearing goofiness to his moments as Clark Kent. Spacey and Posey had great chemistry together as Lex and Kitty, but it still came off like it was trying to recapture the Lex, Otis, Tesmacher tomfoolery of the ’78 version –at which it did not succeed. I don’t care how silly it might be, but Ned Beatty and Gene Hackman’s shtick is unforgettable.<br /><br />I do think the film could have been trimmed a little. At two hours and thirty four minutes, it started to feel a bit long by the middle of the third act. I could have done without the whole “Superman is Dead” portion of the film, where they brought him into the hospital, etc. For a second there, I thought things were going to get really interesting, and they were going to kill him off so that they could deal with his various incarnations in the future installments of the franchise, but then I thought better of it, realizing the studio themselves would have sooner died then let that happen. <br /><br /> I had a lot of fun watching this movie, and something tells me that I had such a good time for the same reasons that Bryan Singer enjoyed making the film. With a cultural icon like Superman, it’s hard not to break into a grin when you see him take flight in the air. His is a story that’s become so familiar to us –living in Metropolis, working as Clark at the Daily Planet, furtively pursuing Lois Lane. I can’t imagine how fun it must have been to play around with all the imagery, and while you’re at it, pay homage a plenty to the original film that gave Supes his birth on the big screen. Because Singer is a good film maker, the film had strong moving parts. It had a solid cast with solid performance, the FX looked great, the emotional moments were well directed. As for the script, I thought it was strong in that it took the time to develop its characters, and layer in humor and drama in equal measure. But I did think the overall plot was a bit too similar to the original film. In fact, originality was the biggest thing lacking from this film. Even if there wasn’t going to be a new take on the Superman character, I would have liked to see something that was a bit of a departure than the traditional “Oh No Metropolis is in trouble, Superman will save the day! Better keep that kryptonite away from him!” The story felt so familiar, but maybe that was the point. Maybe Singer was just looking to give an old tried and true friend a bit of a face lift and a welcome back celebration. If that’s what it was he succeeded indeed.<br /><br /><img src = http://static.flickr.com/70/181922803_09e55574c3.jpg>Kalindahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18379135879333989581noreply@blogger.com10tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419527.post-1150265882801397112006-06-13T23:17:00.000-07:002006-06-13T23:19:37.650-07:00Trailer Round UpBeen a while since I graced the apple trailers <a href = "http://www.apple.com/trailers" target = "_blank"> site </a>, and I thought i'd check out some of its new fare to see what might catch my eye. <br /><br /><strong>Ratatouille</strong><br /><br />I haven't even gotten a chance to see Cars yet, but already I find my fancies tickled by the <a href = "http://www.apple.com/trailers/disney/ratatouille/" target = "_blank"> trailer </a> for the next Pixar installment, the tale of a rat who lives in Paris, and is also a culinary snob. It looks cute, and the design as ever looks marvelous. I love the way they did the cheese and the big panorama of the city of paris. I also think the freeze frame of our rodent friend in mid air is pretty amusing. <br /><br /><strong>Wicker Man</strong><br /><br />I could barely believe my eyes when I saw this <a href = "http://www.apple.com/trailers/wb/thewickerman/" target ="_blank"> trailer </a>. Another missing/tormented little girl horror flick? Really? Haven't there been at least three or four every season for the past few years, but none of them have done well? Silent Hill was dreadful, An American Haunting I did not see, but did not do well, nor was it exactly critically acclaimed. I think the Ring was the last film to do the creepy little girl thing right. And seriously what is up with Nicholas Cage being the busiest man in Hollywood? He is in more movies than any other big star. He has a movie coming out every month, it is absolutely insane. His trailer for Ghost Rider, is a whole different issue entirely, which I'll get into in a moment, but I can barely believe he agreed to do this film. The only thing that could be potentially promising about this is the wierdo, eerie coven of witches. The other head scratcher on this film is the director. How the hell did Neil LaBute end up on this job? This is teh guy who favors small, psychologically disturbing films like In the Company of Men and The Shape of Things. Suddenly he's directing a big budget horror film starring Nicolas Cage. I wouldn't call it selling out exactly, I'd just call it a strange match of artist and material.<br /><br /><strong>The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning</strong><br /><br />OK, I admit, I fell for the ridiculous marketing gag of this film already, which is that they only run the <a href = "http://www.apple.com/trailers/newline/tcm_thebeginning/" target = "_blank"> trailer </a> from 10 PM to 4 AM. I scoffed at this when I first went to check out the trailer in the morning, and laughed about the fact that they would be so silly as to put something like this on their site to start generating chatter. But I will say this for it --mock it as I might, I did run to my laptop right at 10 PM to start downloading the darn thing. Now, surprisingly I actually thought the first remake was entertaining. Naturally it did not even approach the original in terms of its fright factor and style --the first one is just an anomaly of its circumstance, the low budget and gritty style combinging to create almost a documentary like feel. Howver, for a Friday night popcorn muncher I thought this remake had some scary moments of its own (the scene where Biel steps into the trailer of the two old women comes to mind), and kept me engaged throughout. <br /><br /><strong>Ghost Rider</strong><br /><br />Now, I'm not familiar with this particular Marvel comic and I'm not one for biker culture either, so this <a href = "http://www.apple.com/trailers/sony_pictures/ghostrider/" target = "_blank"> trailer </a> did not do a whole lot for me. And again, what is with the Nicolas Cage? I think he's definitely put in some good performances over the years, but sheesh I don't exactly envision him as a superhero, and certainly not the man cast to fight the devil's son himself (as in Ghost Rider)Kalindahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18379135879333989581noreply@blogger.com9tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419527.post-1150002289395390242006-06-10T22:03:00.000-07:002006-06-10T22:04:49.410-07:00The New Yorker remerges and finally puts in her two cents on X-Men 3Yes, I'm still alive believe it or not. I know my absence has been longer than usual, but I’ve just started a new job and it’s been fairly time consuming thus far. <br /><br />At this point in time, an in depth analysis of X Men 3 is probably pointless and beyond my capacity. But I will say this. I fall on the half of the population that enjoyed X-Men 3 The Last Stand. Now I realize that the constituency of people in my life are geekier than the general public, but the resounding chorus of those around me was that it was none too good.<br /><br />Here's the thing. I've always enjoyed the X-Men films, but I’ve never thought they were particularly outstanding. Certainly in the realm of the comic book and super hero films, I don't think that either of the first two eclipsed Spiderman 2, Batman Begins, or the first two of Burton's Batman films. The X-Men movies are the sort that I really enjoy when I’m in the theatre, but will probably never think of again.<br /><br />I’ve heard all sorts of complaints about this third flick – that there was no character development, that they killed off too many of the characters, that the script was cheesy and the FX looked bad. Let me attempt to sift through these one by one. I will agree with the character development gripe. Both Kitty Pryde and Angel were introduced in this third film, but neither one of them was given a lot of specific background and story arc. (Actually a different actress played Kitty Pryde in the X2, but if memory serves me correct, her role was fairly minimal..) We knew that Angel had a conflict with his father about his mutation, but that was about it. It would have been nice to see a little more of his internal struggle, as well as what it was that he enjoyed about his sparking white wings. As for Kitty Pryde, all she really did was look exceedingly young (was it just me, or did the actress who played her look about 12?) and share longing looks with Ice Man. HOWEVER, the inherent problem with X-Men in general, I think, is that there are just too many darn main characters to deal with within the constraints of a single feature film. The X-Men films could never do justice to a character the way Donner’s film did to Superman or Raimi’s film(s) did to Spiderman. The closest its come to really paying homage to a character is with Wolverine. The X-Men animated series, made more sense than the feature projects in certain ways, because at least it allotted more time for exploration of these characters. (This is also why the comics are so good, you get to see these heroes revealed over a course of several issues.) The other thing I would argue in regards to the character development, though I realize it’s a bit specious, is that the first two films were able to do most of the heavy lifting. They had already set up most of what we needed to know for the lynchpins of the series such as Wolverine, Dr. X, Jean Gray, etc. So, the filmmakers probably thought they could get away with less exposition in the third installment.<br /><br />If you haven’t seen X-Men 3 by now, you’re either not going to or you’re going to watch it apathetically on cable. So here come they spoilers. In this chapter of our heroes, Dr. X, Cyclops and Jean Grey/Phoenix are all killed. Some people thought this was pointless, but I thought it was ballsy on their part. It raised the stakes of the game, and actually added some real surprises. And when was the last time a big summer movie actually took you off guard? I couldn’t believe that they actually waxed poor Xaviar-Picard. I did, however, think the tag ending with him speaking out of the body of the brain dead man was silly. I mean, after all, wasn’t this the last stand? Now suddenly Xavier could be alive and Magneto might get his powers back? Come on Fox, stick to your guns.<br /><br />As for the complaints on the “cheesy script” I hear by present exhibit A.<br /><br />“Do you know what happens to a toad when it gets struck by lightning? The same thing that happens to everything else.” <br /><br />Anyone remember this line? Yeah, that’s what I thought. Since when have the X-Men films been the pinnacle of screenwriting. Never, as far as I can remember. Even the second film, which many fans consider to be the best of the trilogy, had its flaws. Deathstrike was cool and everything, but did we ever really “delve” into her character, and did she get much of a set up? Not really. In fact, the only thing I can really remember about the second film was Alan Cumming’s Nightcrawler, which was an exceptionally interesting character. <br /><br />These movies have always been good summer movie fun, and truly a cut above the rest. I will agree that this was probably my least favorite of the trilogy, but I really didn’t think it was without merit. The main storyline, involving the mutant “cure” was apparently lifted from Joss Whedon’s X-Men comic continuity, and it was compelling. I liked the Jean Grey/Phoenix storyline, and the final resolution between her and Wolverine. The scene where she was going nuts at the end, and the water behind her was spiraling into the air looked amazing. I loved Wolverine’s final crawl to her as his mutant bio-mechanisms fought against the disintegration caused by Jean’s powers. Sure I would have liked to see more of Rogue, but at least we could count on Halle Berry’s performance to be as solidly mediocre as it was in the first two.Kalindahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18379135879333989581noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419527.post-1149103473793516152006-05-31T12:23:00.000-07:002006-05-31T14:07:01.653-07:00LOST Season 2 Wrap Up Part II – Theory TalkEven though I just posted a huge piece LOST and the season finale, I still didn’t address everything that I wanted too. So here, for some lighter fare, I’ve put forth some comments and theories.<br /><br />1)The Hurley Bird – Was everyone as shocked as I was when the giant green parrot swooped down from a tree as Sawyer, Michael, Jack, Kate and Hurley made their way to the Others? And did the bird actually say Hurley’s name? I must have rewound this moment about six times on my TiVo and I still couldn’t figure out what was going on. As for the larger implications of this, I don’t really think there are any. This bird falls in line with the polar bear; some sort of funky zoological testing has occurred on this island. The question is, is it part of the Dharma Initiative? Or is it just another prop to make things appear as if the Dharma Initiative actually exists?<br /><br />2)The Big Foot – Remember when Sayid, Jin and Sun were on the sail boat coasting around the perimeter of the island? They saw this classically sculptured enormous stone foot, with only four toes. Many of you have already pointed out the connection to Colossus, and the most famous of these was the Colossus of Rhodes, a tribute to the ancient Greek god of the sun, Helios. (The most well known myth about Helios is about his sun riding the sun chariot to his doom) There’s definitely some Greek mythology woven in here, between the foot and the name choice of Desmond’s lady, Penelope. As one talk backer aptly pointed out, Desmond could by viewed as a stand in for Ulysses, desperately trying to get home as he sailed the ocean. Whatever mythological and metaphorical implications the foot might have, the fact that it even exists is pretty huge. I can’t even begin to think how it ended up there…<br /><br />3)The Walt Factor – There was so much going on in this two hour juggernaut, that I really didn’t even give much thought to Walt. There is still a lot of mystery surrounding what the Others did to him, as well as whatever special powers he might possess. I hope that even if he leaves the show (as the ending of the finale suggested that he might) that we will eventually learn the truth of his significance to the Others. An associate of mine, who shall be credited here as JBG, brought up some interesting points, weaving together clues that were scattered throughout the season:<br /><br />“Remember in the Michael flashback episode, how Ms. Klugh asked him if Walt ever ‘appeared anywhere he wasn't supposed to?’ That was clearly an explanation of how he appeared to Shannon and Sayid. Remember how he (Walt) kept saying ‘don't push the button?’ “<br /><br />I had completely forgotten about the fact that earlier on, survivors were having sightings of Walt. Is it possible that the boy is able to teleport? If so I wonder if once off the island, he would be able to teleport back… As for why Walt was telling them not to push the button, I’m uncertain. Clearly Walt knows something about the button that we don’t. But why would he urge them to not press the button and set free the electro-magnetic forces? Did the Others plant this message in his mind? If so, why would the Others want the button to remain unpressed. Wouldn’t they all be destroyed as well?<br /><br />4) Jack, Sawyer and Kate – Seriously, anyone have any good theories on why they took these three? Do we think they are going to conduct some sort of bizarre behavioral experiment about males vying for female attention? Or is it much simpler. Does it have to do with how much they know about the island, and where they’ve been. I’m really clueless on this one.Kalindahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18379135879333989581noreply@blogger.com14tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419527.post-1149028005610081642006-05-30T15:25:00.000-07:002006-05-30T15:26:45.626-07:00LOST Season 2 Wrap UpMy head is still reeling a little bit from last week’s two hour season finale of LOST. There was so much to take in and decipher. For whatever I’m about to dissect or analyze in the following paragraphs, let me just say that this was by far the most compelling of all the season finale’s I’ve watched this year. I was completely engrossed in everything that was going on, and though I had my frustrations, I have to say –the LOST writers have me in the palm of their hands. They are really building up to a larger mystery here and the suspense only continued to grow last night. A couple of questions were answered, such as the fact that the button actually has a purpose, and that it may have in fact caused the crash of Oceanic flight 815. But many more questions were put forth, about the island, the nature of the hatch, and of course the elusive Others.<br /><br />First things first: Desmond. I’m quite fond of the actor, Henry Ian Cusick, who plays the role of Desmond. His character is interesting and I like the parallel of starting and ending this second season with his story. But I was a little confused as to why he was the central character in the finale. Book-ending aside, wouldn’t it have made a more sense if this episode was placed towards the end of the season, instead of culminating the season wrap up? I for one felt like we saw very little of several of the main characters in the show. The only central character who seemed to get a fair shake was Locke, everyone else, even Jack and Eko, was pretty limited to a few scenes with quick-paced dialogue. In this episode we learned a great deal about Desmond’s history –that he was a military man who also served time in prison (It’s a bit unclear as to whether or not his jail time was justified or now). We learned that he was in love with a wealthy woman, by the name of Penelope, whose father disapproved of him. Desmond’s flashbacks also covered some of his time on the island, and showed his old “partner” who lived in the Hatch with him, Inman. In yet another startling coincidence, Inman was the very same Colonel who bribed Sayid into torturing his former colleague in Iraq. But coincidences abounded in this episode. As it turns out, Libby, AKA Elizabeth, donated her dead husband’s sail boat to Desmond so that he could accomplish his race around the world. (I found myself wondering about the character’s timelines, and if Libby was at the mental hospital before or after she met Desmond.…) But for all this juicy back story, I found myself wondering, why now? Why the sudden return to Desmond? Sure it gave the season a nice symmetry, but I would argue that the primary story arc this season focused more on the Others than the button in The Hatch. Once the Hatch was revealed at the start of the second season, the urgency of the button pushing could only be stretched out for so long. It either did something, or did nothing, but either way, it didn’t present the myriad of possibilities and explanations that the Others did. <br /><br />There were an innumerable amount of questions interlaced into Desmond’s flashbacks and story, and I have a hard time even postulating answers for them. Here are a few of them. What is Libby’s deal? I have a very unclear sense of her back story; she’s probably lied at some point, the question is about what. How did Inman end up in the Hatch? Are we to believe that there is some US military involvement in the Dharma Initiative or the Hanso Foundation? When Desmond was dragged into the Hatch from the beach on the island, were there several men in the yellow Hazmat suits? Or was it only Inman, and were the blurry images we saw, a product of Desmond’s hazy state of consciousness? What exactly did the failsafe –the key port underneath the ground level that the drunken Inman showed to Desmond, do? When the survivors on the island were shrouded in the shocking white light –was that a product of the button not being pushed, or of the failsafe being pushed? <br /><br />And what of the big reveal of the episode/season? Based on the finale we are meant to believe that when Desmond didn’t push the button (after leaving the Hatch), the electro-magnetic surge that ensued caused Oceanic flight 815 to crash. But that just doesn’t make sense to me; in fact I have a feeling it’s all part of some big charade. Here’s why I don’t believe it. Everything that we’ve been building up to with the Others has indicated that they have fairly extensive knowledge of the passengers. Not only do they have their names, but they know exactly what each of them looks like, and it has been implied at various junctures that the Others had knowledge of these passengers, and maybe even of the flight before it crashed. But if the plane crashed because of some freak accident caused by a random action, or in this case, inaction on the part of Desmond, it doesn’t jive with the Others having pre-existing knowledge.<br /><br />I had an argument with a friend of mine, who put forth the idea that The Others could have also orchestrated Desmond’s action at just the right time, via Inman, when they knew Oceanic Flight 815 was flying overhead. But I don’t buy this. Let’s retrace Desmond’s steps shall we? Inman has been exiting the Hatch for months, but Desmond is told he cannot leave, because he must press the button. Desmond is curious about going above ground to the surface, despite the fact that Inman warns him the air is unsafe to breathe, and dons a Hazmat suit every time he goes up. So one day Desmond watches Inman preparing to leave the Hatch, and sees there is a tear in the leg of his Hazmat suit. Suspicious, Desmond follows him, and discovers, not only that the air is breathable, but that Inman has been repairing his sail boat. This leads Desmond to question his entire purpose in the Hatch, including the button, and the two get into a physical fight. Desmond accidentally kills Inman, and horrified, runs back to the Hatch, where the button is approaching count down. Desmond lets it go to zero, and when he feels the powerful magnetic forces tearing through the Hatch, he panics and enters the numbers. Of course, he doesn’t press the button soon enough, and in the process Oceanic 815 is brought down.<br /><br />Now, are we truly meant to believe that all of these little moments and actions were perfectly orchestrated at just the right time? It seems impossible. My friend argued that maybe Inman was in with the Others, and they lured him out at just the right time so he would be late in returning to the button. But how could they possibly know he would glance at Inman’s torn suit on that particular day and decide to follow him, after days of not doing so. Therefore in my opinion, only two things are possible. One is that the crash was really an accident. The second is that the reveal of the cause for the plane crash is not the whole story, and I have to go with the second. BUT, if the second clause is true, then this means, that the finale, basically answered nearly nothing. It confirmed the fact that the button has power, and gave a potentially false answer to the question of the crash. Though I liked the fact that Henry Gale was revealed to be the leader of the Others, --in fact it has come amazing implications (the survivors didn’t kill their leader when they had the chance!), it doesn’t really count as an answer to one of the millions of questions floating around in the ether.<br /><br />I think that this season LOST officially entered Twin Peaks territory. Now, I’ve never seen Twin Peaks (crazy, I know), but I hear that during its short lived tenure(two seasons, I think), it dealt with the murder of Laura Palmer, a young woman in a small town. The primary driving plot of this show was centered on solving the mystery behind her death. Now, the show was cancelled before it got a chance to reveal its true secrets, and a couple years later a film set as a prequel was released to try and delve further into the mystery, (the film was Fire Walk With Me). Both the TV show and the film were endeavors of the quirky, if not enigmatic David Lynch.<br /> <br />Now, some people thought Twin Peaks was brilliant because it created a setting and cast of characters that were so fascinating, that the mystery behind the death of Laura Palmer became more of a backdrop for the show. In fact, I’ve even heard some Twin Peaks purists argue, that the show was better off because of the fact that the real truth behind Laura’s death was never unveiled. It was better this way, they contend, because each person could think up their own answer to the ever looming questions.<br /><br />Again, I’ve never seen Twin Peaks, so I can’t really put in my own two cents about this specific show. But I fear that LOST is entering this dangerous territory, where clues that have been laid down since the show began, will ultimately be forgotten as the story forges ahead, intent on weaving more and more of a tangled web of plotting. Will LOST’s questions ever be answered completely? Will all these pieces add up to a cohesive whole? And if they’re never answered, is that OK, because ultimately it is a story about humanity playing itself out in a cultural vacuum? At the risk of sounding like an impatient, ignorant, MTV-generation American, I say the secret does matter. It matters, and I think it should be told. This show hasn’t been framed to be a strictly Robinson Crusoe like tale, or a mere inter-personal drama. It has been set up from the beginning as a true mystery, and as such, I do believe it has an obligation to its audience, to reveal the unknowns. To be frank, I don’t think it has strong enough characters to simply carry on its story without the mysterious elements. Locke is by far, in my opinion, the best character, and Sawyer is great. But the rest of them sort of fade away into one-notedom if you ask me. Don’t get me wrong, they all have their moments, but there are so many of them now, that they don’t get as much attention and development as they did in the first season.<br /><br />As I mentioned at the start of this post, I found the finale to be one of the more compelling couple hours of Television I had seen in quite some time. And you can bet your bippy that I’m going to be clawing at my set come next fall for the season premiere. But I feel something that I didn’t feel last year after the first season. Last year I was genuinely engaged by the cliffhanger of the Hatch. Some people were annoyed by it, but I wasn’t. Between the Black Rock, Rousseau kidnapping the baby, and the others showing their faces, I felt there was action aplenty. But I felt differently about this finale. Maybe, it’s gotten a little old?<br /><br />It’s one thing to have a cliffhanger, like wondering whether or not Michael and Walt will be saved, or will ever appear in the series again. Or why the Others were specifically interested in Jack, Sawyer and Kate? But the bottom line is, we still know very, very little about what the heck is going on here. OK, so one of the observation hatch was a set up (their logs ended up tossed on the ground). The outside world does exist, (as proven by the Russian guys monitoring electro-magnetic activity at the behest of Desmond’s girlfriend) and this is not a post-apocalyptic or purgatorial affair. The button in the Hatch does something. The crash MAY have partially been explained. But we still don’t have a cotton pickin’ clue as to what the Others are really about, what the Dharma Initiative is, how the Hanso Foundation plays in, and if the oodles of coincidences are really anything more than just coincidences. But hey, it worked didn’t it? I mean here I am pondering paragraph upon paragraph as to the meaning of it all. I think next season will be very telling as to the direction that the show will go in. This season really felt like a stretch, in terms of how far they could spread certain isolated incidents into an entire year’s worth of show. I’m hoping the third season will be pivotal.Kalindahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18379135879333989581noreply@blogger.com11tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419527.post-1149011217840812532006-05-30T10:44:00.000-07:002006-05-30T10:46:57.873-07:00An Update from the New YorkerHello All,<br /><br />Just a quick word here to let you all know I'm still alive and kicking. My internet at home decided to break this weekend, so I've basically been shut out from the outside world. Hey, if it's not one thing, it's another, right?<br /><br />However, never fear, a LOST season wrap up is forthcoming, as well as a review of X Men 3: The Last Stand. But in the mean time, I simply ADORE this poster.<br /><br /><img src = http://static.flickr.com/53/151540752_9e588472a7.jpg>Kalindahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18379135879333989581noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419527.post-1148584943469060892006-05-25T12:13:00.000-07:002006-05-25T12:22:23.630-07:00LOST: The MusicalI'm still processing the multitude of strange elements dealt with in last night's season finale of LOST. As I mull things over in my mind, here is a silly <a href = "http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TWwGbF5v-Y" target = "_blank"> parody </a> of the show that was posted up on <a href = "http://www.youtube.com" target = "blank"> You Tube </a> today.Kalindahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18379135879333989581noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419527.post-1148513931394661372006-05-24T16:36:00.000-07:002006-05-24T16:38:51.410-07:00The New Yorker is quite possibly the last person on earth to see the full length Pirates trailer, but she loves every minute of it…I’m not sure why, but it’s taken me FOREVER to watch the full length <a href = http://www.totaleclips.com/Player/Bounce.aspx?eclipid=e27307&bitrateid=241&vendorid=600 target = “_blank”> trailer </a> for Pirates of the Caribbean 2: Dead Man’s Chest. For a while there, I was trying to access links that wouldn’t work, or trailers that wouldn’t download properly. But yesterday, at long last I saw it, and feel confident in saying without a doubt:<br /><br />Pirates will be the biggest movie of the summer.<br /><br />Now this might be old news to many a geek and movie buff out there, but there have been some other prime contenders for this top spot this season. Besides Pirates, I’d say the other three competitors for THE blockbuster summer movie of the season were/are MI3, X-Men3 and Superman Returns. Yeah, Snakes on a Plane has a ton of buzz, but it’s more a B movie triumph than a blockbuster affair. <br /><br />MI3 failed to really thrill, both at the box office and with the fans. It was a fun, enjoyable movie, but it didn’t have that special something that drives the geeks back a second and third time. So far X-Men 3 is not getting much love from the <a href = http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/x_men_3_the_last_stand/ target = “_blank”> critics </a>, mostly, it seems, because of the R (Ratner) factor. As for Superman Returns, I think it looks fantastic, but everyone else I know is yawing at the trailer. What’s the one movie that seems to unite disparate groups of audience goers? Parents and children, men and women, geeks and non-geeks? Pirates. I’m not exactly sure what it is about this movie (well, actually I have an idea), but Disney and Bruckheimer have really struck gold (pun intended) with this one. Pirates achieves this fairly unique tone, unmatched by most other films out there. It’s a fanciful blend of genres, a comedic pirate fantasy movie. Like Indiana Jones before it, it took an antiquated genre (for Indy it was the adventure serials of the 30’s, for Pirates, it was the swashbuckling films of the 40’s and 50’s), and revamped it for a new generation. Now, I’m not saying Pirates has achieved Indy status, at least not yet. The Indy movies were incredibly tight and sleekly done, there wasn’t a moment of dead time. The first Pirates, however, could have afforded to trim the fat a little bit, but there’s definitely a similarity in tone between these films. Pirates also reminds me of one of my father’s old favorites, that I watch repeatedly as a child --The Crimson Pirate, starring Burt Lancaster as a jolly, mischievous pirate with a comedic sidekick. <br /><br />Based off the trailer, Pirates 2 looks to be just as enthralling as the first, if not more so. Once again, it (naturally) takes place in the Caribbean, and I’ll take a moment here to point out, that another wonderfully refreshing element of this franchise, is the location. So often I think pirates and battleship epics have been associated with Europe and other cold climate destinations. But there’s something about the fact that these fantasies unfold over turquoise waters with palm trees and white sandy beaches in the background, that adds to the visual beauty and lively tone of the films. Johnny Depp seems as loopy as ever as he reprises his role as Captain Jack Sparrow, and Orlando Bloom as Will Turner, seems to have picked up a bit of girth, looking even manlier for the second time around. It seems that Elizabeth (Keira Knightly) has decided to try her luck at the Pirate career path, which is an idea I’m fond of, and I’m pleased that Lee Arenberg and Mackenzie Crook (the two wacky pirates) have returned for the fun as well. It’s certainly impressive that Disney has been able to keep everyone on board for all three installments of this trilogy. Not only does it have gangbusters casting, but Gore Verbinski has returned to direct, and Ted Elliot and Terry Rossio wrote the script as well. Elliot and Rossio’s scripts are great pacey fun with imaginative set pieces that don’t leave their characters in the dust in the process. I think Davy Jones and his sea creature minions look great; wonderfully detailed and inventive. I also love the fact that some sort of enormous octopus is involved in this film; the shot of the ship ensnared in the tentacles of the octo-monster is amazing. <br /><br />Only forty three days and counting!<br /><br /><img src = http://static.flickr.com/72/152737362_76145bb116.jpg>Kalindahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18379135879333989581noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419527.post-1148358831259558572006-05-22T21:32:00.000-07:002006-05-24T16:40:42.543-07:00LOST; the endgame approachesOK, so I know I’ve been delinquent on my weekly LOST recap, but I went away for a few days and was without computer access. I am back now, albeit exhausted from my travels, but I will try and piece together a slapdash entry for last week’s LOST episode.<br /><br />I had read in some foolish spoiler heavy magazine article that last week’s episode, “Three Minutes” would be driven by a Michael flashback. I was both pleased and relieved when I saw that (like Claire’s before him), his flashback centered on events that had taken place on the island, namely his time with The Others. As moving as I found the first episode that depicted his situation with Walt, by the second time round, things were feeling recycled, and I don’t think I could have sat through yet another rehashing of his attempts at trying to retain custody over his son. <br /><br />I wasn’t really sold on the first fifteen minutes or so of the episode. They were showing a fair amount of footage from past episodes, and I was worried that it was going to be chock full of things we’d already seen. I did, however, like the way that the timeline was woven together, and that how, for instance, we learned that Michael was standing in the jungle with the Others when Kate was captured, and the Sea Billie had a standoff with Jack, Sawyer and Locke. Things started to get really interesting when Michael was brought to that strange beachside shanty town filled with filthy looking Others and slipshod tents. They shot Michael up with something right away, and I wonder if it was a drug that was meant to alter Michael’s psychological state, or if it was actually more of this “vaccine” business that’s been bandied about for two seasons now. Speaking of unmarked vials and syringes, what the heck was up with Charlie giving Claire that case filled with “medicine.” Though I think the fact that Charlie shot himself with the drug will surely play out in the future, I thought it was a bizarre mechanism to use as the thing that will win Charlie’s favor back with Claire. It was insane enough that Claire was grateful for it. Who in their right minds would shoot their baby up with an unknown substance. “Oh Gee Chahlie, thanks for this random chemical that might kill my baybee.” Her fears should not necessarily be allayed by the fact that Charlie claims he’s taken it without ill effect –that hardly counts as a proper medical trial. It harkens back to that muddled episode a couple months ago, where, convinced that her baby was “sick,” Claire sought out to find the “medicine” –I mean it’s all so ridiculous, and for now this plot line just annoys me.<br /><br />When Michael was sitting on the beach and one of the Others mentioned a “her”, I half expected the French Woman to come out and expose herself as a traitor. Of course we all know by now, she didn’t, and instead a solemn looking woman, (did we even get a name for her?) emerged from the tent and started grilling Michael about Walt. The most terrifying and revealing moment in this episode came during the scene when Michael and the woman spoke in her tent at night. The degree of information that the Others have is startling, and I still haven’t cracked one good theory as to why they are interested in some survivors more than others. The woman bribed Michael and promised him that Walt would be returned to him if he set the artist formerly known as Henry Gale free, and bring back a few others from the camp. But what is the significance of the specific group comprised of Jack, Sawyer, Kate and Hurley? Why not Sayid? (He’s physically fit and could pose a threat to them.) Why not Sun? (She’s pregnant.) There doesn’t seem to be any common denominator among the four that were chosen. There’s also the fact that the woman knew all of their full names. I guess it’s possible that Ethan had stolen the passenger manifest and passed on the survivors names to his cohorts, but here’s the other thing to consider. Clearly this woman, and the Others, must not only have the names of the survivor, but must know what they each look like –otherwise how would they know that anyone who came with Michael was not who they said they were. While discussing this phenomenon with a friend, he reminded me that in the episode “The Other 48 Days,” it had been revealed to Ana Lucia that there was some sort of list, and that the tail end survivors were somehow being systematically picked off by the Others, and not by random either. Could this relate back to the “good” and “bad” folk as well? <br /><br />My question is, how is all this possible? There is some mighty big conspiracy going on here, but I’m not sure what it is. As I see it, there are only a couple possibilities. The first is that there are surveillance cameras on the island that have yet to be revealed (somewhere in the forest and the beach, etc.). It is possible that the Others could be using video surveillance cameras in the hatch –it occurred to me all the people the woman requested Michael to bring have spent significant time in the Hatch. However, this doesn’t explain how the Others knew which survivors they were capturing from the tail section group. All signs seem to lead back to the fact that The Others already knew who these passengers were before they even boarded the plane. It’s also apparent that the Others are much more high tech than they appear to be. I’m curious as to where their actual headquarters is. Is it in another hatch? Is it on another island? When Walt was brought into the tent, he said something along the lines of, “They’re not who they say they are” or “They’re not what they seem” so clearly the theory of the Others as some larger conspiracy has now been officially solidified. But if The Others really are just a bunch of scientists playing dress up, what’s the point? To play mind games with the survivors so they can observe their responses? I’m still holding out for the idea that some of the Others (such as Alex, Rousseau’s daughter, and maybe even Henry Gale) have been coerced into the group against their will.<br /><br />On a brief aside, Sayid is the man. I love that he was the one that picked up that Michael was not acting himself. I can’t wait to see how this whole scenario plans out between Michael, the Others, and the survivors. There’s also the matter of the sail boat that comes to shore at the very end of the episode. My guess is that it’s going to be empty, but the survivors find some sort of momentous clue on there which tips them off to the bigger Others conspiracy. <br /><br />I’m very much looking forward to the season finale of this show. Last year’s finale was terrific, and there’s a tremendous amount of hype that this finale is going to top it and more. I will say this though. I have a really funny feeling about the direction this show is going in. I smell some sort of multi-national corporate scam, and more and more I feel that all the survivors are connected by some piece of history shared by their parents/ancestors. I really hope it doesn’t turn out to be just a geo-political conspiracy though. Last week’s issue of Entertainment Weekly had the LOST cast members on the cover and did a huge expose on the show. They mentioned a common rumor in the feature article that the head exec over at ABC discourages the writers from playing up the sci-fi elements in the show. If it is true, it’s a pretty odd thing to do, considering that the show draws pretty heavily from the science fiction genre. I’ve always been more interested in the episodes that incorporate the mysterious and fantastical over those that played more like an hour of straight drama. I am dying to know how all this Hanso Foundation and Dharma Initiative stuff ties up, I just hope these boys can pull it off.Kalindahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18379135879333989581noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419527.post-1147908184998031652006-05-17T16:21:00.000-07:002006-05-17T16:23:05.010-07:00Bye Bye West WingLast night I watched the West Wing Finale, which aired this past Sunday night. The show ran for seven good long years, and spanned the two term fictitious presidency of Jed Bartlet (Martin Sheen). The last two seasons also delved into the presidential election and saw it through from primaries to inauguration. <br /><br />West Wing was one of those rare shows that had about as good a run as a TV show can hope for. It had several sustained quality years, but wasn’t dragged in the dirt like many a respectable show because the network didn’t try to suck as much mileage out of it as possible. Granted, some of this was due to the fact that logistically it wouldn’t have been believable to extend the Bartlet presidency. But in theory, they could have continued on with Matt Santos as president. That however, would have been a mistake, and I’m glad they didn’t go there. <br /><br />Many people wrote off the show a couple years back when creator Aaron Sorkin left to go work on other endeavors. But I stuck around to watch the last two seasons, and I’m glad I did. Yes, the show morphed a bit, but not in a negative way, and the quality did not decline. The fast paced dialogue and quick wit of the characters remained, and I thought it was fascinating to watch the campaign trails of Matthew Santos and Arnold Vinick unfold. Say what you will about the insidious politics spouted by the show, but I thought they created a real and sympathetic character out of Republican candidate Arnold Vinick. <br /><br />I can understand why West Wing wouldn’t be everyone’s cup of tea, particularly if one’s political viewpoints did not align with those espoused by the administration depicted on the show. But I think the show surpassed any limits its political tone might have implied by creating something of outstanding quality. Week after week it presented intelligent, well written, well acted episodes, that raised the bar for network television. The show succeeded not only because it presented important and interesting issues in a polished manner, but because it had created a cast of memorable and dynamic characters. Bartlet and his family, CJ Craig, Josh Lyman, Toby Ziegler, Leo McGarry (John Spencer RIP), and on and on. They also consistently brought on fresh faces with interesting stories behind them, like Janeane Garofolo or Mary Louise Parker for instance. The show was able to sustain itself for as long as it did because it creating compelling characters that had unique relationships with one another.<br /><br />Even though I know it was West Wing’s time to go, I will still miss it. There’s not exactly an excess of smart television out there, and The West Wing leaves some big shoes to be filled.<br /><img src = http://static.flickr.com/50/148427709_5d51c1dbeb.jpg>Kalindahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18379135879333989581noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419527.post-1147736380636575202006-05-15T16:36:00.000-07:002006-05-15T16:39:40.650-07:00Oh Poor PoseidonPoseidon only brought in $20 Million at the box office this weekend, not too pretty considering it had a budget in the range of $150 Million. It didn’t even make the number one spot, and was surpassed by MI3 in its sophomore session. People have been mocking Poseidon for weeks now, maybe pun upon pun and predicting the depths that the disaster action flick would sink to on its opening weekend. I for one had no real expectations about the film. OK, I mean I had seen the <a href = http://www.apple.com/trailers/wb/poseidon/trailer2/ target = “_blank”> trailer </a>, so I knew it was going to be goofy. But it’s been years since I’ve seen the original The Poseidon Adventure, and I only had vague recollections of the 1972 picture going into the remake. <br /><br />For those of you who aren’t familiar with the story, and missed the trailers, the concept couldn’t be simpler. A large ocean cruise liner capsizes in the middle of the ocean. A few survivors band together and make their way through the ship, as they attempt to escape through the top of the boat. (The boat has flipped, so the bottom is now on top, etc.) The cast of characters is a rag tag group of people from all walks of life. There is Robert Ramsey (Kurt Russell), a former firefighter and New York City mayor. His daughter Jennifer, (Emmy Rossum, the lead in the feature film version of The Phantom of the Opera), has just gotten engaged to her boyfriend, Christian (Mike Vogel), much to the chagrin of her overprotective father. Richard Nelson (Richard Dreyfuss), an architect, who has just been dumped by his long term life partner, which renders him fairly weepy for most of the film. Dylan Johns (Josh Lucas), a former Navy officer who is “only in it for himself”. There’s also Maggie (Jacinda Barrett, that’s right, cast member of Real World London), a young single mother travelling with her ten year old son, Conor (Jimmy Bennett) and Elena Gonzalez (Mia Maestro), a funky Hispanic girl who is on her way to New York to visit her brother in the hospital. There are even a couple more, but I can’t bear to rattle anymore off. Actually I can manage just one more. Fergie of Black Eyed Peas fame, made a cameo of terrifying proportions. For those of you who are dubious about going to check this one out, it might be worth a rental just for that.<br /><br />It shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone that character development was kept to a minimum, and the emotional moments in the film were played up extravagantly to make up for the fact they tentatively came out of no where. There was a lot of furniture chewing going on here. The Visual FX were a mixed bag. Every piece of exterior scenery in this entire film was done with CGI, it was all shot on sets and green screen. So the sky, the water, the clouds and the exterior of the boat were all animated. The seams were definitely visible at the beginning of the film, when the boat was cruising through the ocean in daylight. Luckily, night fell pretty quickly, and the interiors of the boat, which were shot on a sound stage, looked decent. The sequence of the boat over turning had some mildly entertaining moments, and I thought the FX of the Poseidon under water didn’t look half bad.<br /><br /> <br />Here’s the thing about Poseidon. This was not, by any stretch of the imagination a good film. But it wasn’t that bad either. It was what I like to call a benign blockbuster. I didn’t hate this movie. I was bored at times, and laughed inappropriately at others, but out of the last couple years of summer doozies, this was not the worst by far. There just wasn’t a lot to hate. Poseidon was straightforward in its presentation, it didn’t pretend to be anything that it wasn’t. There were probably only about ten minutes of movie before the “rouge wave” came around and knocked the cruise liner ass over tea kettle. What followed was a series of action set pieces. The survivors crossing an elevator shaft on a piece of sheet metal. The survivors traversing the width of a humongous ballroom on a makeshift zip line. The survivors battling fiery explosions and rushing water at every turn. Of course not everyone makes it out alive, after all it is a disaster movie. But as suspected, a good number do survive and are happily rescued.<br /><br />You can hate a film like League of Extraordinary Gentlemen because if took a brilliant concept and botched it royally. You can hate Van Helsing because it was bloated and tried to created complications where there didn’t need to be any (I defy anyone who says they can explain the plot of that film in a cohesive fashion). You can hate Planet of the Apes because it defiled the original classic film. But you can’t really hate Poseidon for just being. Sure the original was better, but it wasn’t an unforgettable film. And we’re talking about a disaster movie here, one of the most unpretentious, what you see is what you get sub-genres in Hollywood. Think of Poseidon’s peers; Armageddon, Deep Impact, Volcano, Dante’s Peak, Earthquake, Twister, etc. I mean none of these films are exactly mind blowing feats of cinema. <br /><br />To those people who have been decrying Poseidon’s name for weeks on end, I ask, what did you expect?Kalindahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18379135879333989581noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419527.post-1147470048546714272006-05-12T14:39:00.000-07:002006-05-12T14:40:48.556-07:00Friday FunnyI'm not sure exactly why <a href = "http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ueaXKDURuY&search=jar%20barf" target = "_blank"> this </a> makes me laugh. But it does.Kalindahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18379135879333989581noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419527.post-1147375741031528012006-05-11T12:27:00.000-07:002006-05-11T12:29:01.050-07:00The New Yorker proclaims today LOST Theory DayStill not sure quite what to make of last night’s LOST. I could bellyache about how I wasn’t satisfied with Mr. Eko’s flashback, or complain that I thought that the pacing was too slow, but I have bigger fish to fry. Last night’s episode had some startling and perplexing implications about the larger mythology, and I'm in the mood to theorize.<br /><br />Mr. Eko goes to visit the family of the daughter who has been miraculously revived, and has a conversation with the girl’s father, who also happens to be Claire’s psychic. Last season’s episode “Raised by Another” was one of the creepiest episodes aired to date. The insistence of the sinister psychic that Claire’s baby must not fall into the hands of “others,” and that she must raise it herself was unsettling to say the least. His sudden change of heart and urgency that she get on a plane to give her baby up in America, was disturbing when considering that the psychic foresaw the plane crash. As it turned out, she would be the one to care for the baby, which is what he had argued for in the first place. But last night when the psychic spoke to Mr. Eko, he confessed that he was a fraud, and much to the chagrin of his wife, fabricated his psychic readings.<br /><br />There are a few different possibilities here. <br /><br />1) The psychic didn’t know what he was talking about when he told Claire that if her baby fell into the wrong hands it could be disastrous. He told her that to frighten her, and then since he’s an unsavory character, he lined up some buyers for the baby in America, and was somehow going to get a back end fee for setting up Claire’s baby with the couple in the U.S. The fact that the plane crashed and the baby’s well being would later be endangered was all a coincidence. This is my least favorite possibility. The eerie premonition of the baby’s importance is completely deflated if it was all just some mumbo jumbo spouted by a second rate faux psychic. I suppose there is an argument to be made that there’s something still significant about the role that fate played in Claire’s trajectory. The psychic actually wasn’t a psychic, and didn’t know about the plane crash, but his suspicious actions led her to the island at any rate. <br /><br />2) The psychic was lying when he told Mr. Eko he was a fraud. This, however, doesn’t seem like a viable possibility. There was no impetus for him to bring up his profession at all, no reason for him to lay himself out on the line to a priest he had just met. His confession of disbelief in miracles seemed like a genuine reflection of his regard for “otherworldly” matters. <br /><br />3) The psychic does in fact have the gift of sight, but he does understand it or believe it, and chooses to be cynical about his abilities, chalking them up to lucky guessing and coincidence. <br /><br />Whatever the case may be, this scene laid to waste the crux of a solid episode from last season. I like it when inexplicable and potentially supernatural elements converge via the survivors on the island. Claire’s baby has a loaded future, Walt has special powers, Locke was miraculously healed, people continue to have visions on the island, etc. But now more than ever the show seems to be leaning towards a more specific scientific reasoning for everything, which I find remiss because I liked the whole “magic island” feel. <br /><br />Also in this episode, Mr. Eko and Locke discover the pearl station, another piece in the Dharma Initiative puzzle. There, the two men discovered a monitoring station which had active video surveillance of “The Hatch” and another Orientation video. The video, much like the first one found by Eko earlier in the season, detailed the tasks to be fulfilled at the Pearl station. The men on duty are meant to record what they saw in the hatch in simple logs and then send them (via messenger tubes) to a central command of sorts. The video instructions did not give much explanation for the purpose of their duties, only that they must be completed. To complicate things, the station looked empty and unused, as if no one had been working there for years. <br /><br />Here are some of my theories. <br /><br />1)The island was once the sight of some grand scientific experiment perhaps funded by the Hanso Foundation that went awry. The leaders of the Others were once the executors of the experiments, but after “the accident”, they run wild and crazed through the jungle. They have now also absorbed the former test subjects into their group, and order them to do their bidding. So contrary to what I’ve said before (but in agreement with certain talk backers here) the Others are in fact comprised of two groups of people. Those who used to run the Dharma Initiative, and those who were the Guinea pigs. Just what this terrible event was, I’m not sure, but it might be that they lost control of the elements they were trying to harness such as the electro-magnetic forces and the biological components. <br /><br />2) The experiment is on going. The Dharma Initiative is bogus, and the pearl station was nothing more than a staging prop, something to make the survivors believe that they are at the site of a failed testing ground. The orientation video tapes and equipment were purpose planted with the intention of being found. The Others are all just actors who use costumes (see fake beard) and technology to manipulate the survivors into thinking there is some rhyme or reason to the things that they find on the island. Everything is a part of the facade, the Black Rock, the Hatches, even Rousseau is cahoots with them. They even kidnapped Claire knowing that she would eventually have flashbacks and remember exactly what they wanted her to remember. This is why the medical hatch was abandoned when Claire, Kate and Rousseau went back to it. It was nothing more than a fake set. The coincidences and connections among the survivors exist because…well, I’m not exactly how that would fit into it. Maybe they are all unique in some way, or are drawn to each other for a certain reason. Maybe it’s a six degrees of separation thing, or maybe their ancestors were all involved in some crazy WWII scheme, who knows. I’m not sure how I feel about the experiment within an experiment thing however. If one was conducting a behavioral study on humans in an enclosed environment, why would the cover up be so close to the actual truth? It could be considered reverse psychology, but I’m not sure. <br /><br />That’s all I got for today. Anyone have a better idea?Kalindahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18379135879333989581noreply@blogger.com13tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419527.post-1147294595770642092006-05-10T13:55:00.000-07:002006-05-10T15:07:16.893-07:00The New Yorker makes a bashful confessionMoments after mocking a fellow geek and friend, I purchased <a href = http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?z=y&isbn=1401302769&itm=1 target = “_blank”> Bad Twin </a>, the LOST tie in novel released this month. Written by fictional author Gary Troup, who was on Oceanic Flight 815, the book is the published incarnation of the manuscript that Sawyer was reading in last week's episode. Hopefully, the book will include the last pages of the novel, where as Jack threw the last few pages of the manuscript into the fire to get Sawyer’s attention.<br /><br />This is a little embarrassing I know, and I shouldn’t be falling for it, but I just can’t help myself. The novel, which seems to be a noir pot boiler, must surely contain some sort of clues or thematic links to upcoming events in the TV show. What I want to know is, who is the poor schlub that had to crank out this 256 page mystery and not get any of the credit for it?<br /><br />Oh who am I trying to kid, I would have taken the job in a second…<br /><br /><img src = http://static.flickr.com/56/144186293_8d38a597ff_m.jpg>Kalindahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18379135879333989581noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419527.post-1147281800615730802006-05-10T10:22:00.000-07:002006-05-10T10:24:35.830-07:00Full Length Lady in the WaterI was alerted yesterday by a cohort of mine, that the full length <a href = http://playlist.yahoo.com/makeplaylist.dll?id=1428606&sdm=web&qtw=640&qth=400 target = “_blank”> trailer </a> for M. Night Shyamalan’s next film, Lady in the Water has hit the internet. <br /><br />I’ve been dubious of this project since I first <a href = http://newyorkerinhollywood.blogspot.com/2005/03/new-yorker-says-m-night-you-crazy.html target = “_blank”> blogged </a> about it, over a year ago. The <a href = http://newyorkerinhollywood.blogspot.com/2005/11/lady-in-what_29.html target = “_blank”> teaser </a> for this thing was a geniune head scratcher, but after catching more glimpses of the film, my uncertainty has been replaced by genuine curiosity.<br /><br />I will say this, the new longer trailer makes the film look far more promising that the initial teaser did. Shyamalan has always had a way with the camera, and there are a couple of shots in here that are stunning. The overhead shot of the swimming pool at night is terrifying, and I also love the later overhead shot with the tenants standing around it. (If you pause your quicktime and use your arrows to scroll through the frames in slo mo, there is something white in the water….mayhaps the lady!) I was intrigued when Paul Giamatti’s character was shown finding the circular portal while under water. I’m fond of the idea of a doorway to another world resting at the bottom of a swimming pool in a dreary apartment complex. Also Bryce Dallas Howard, who I thought was quite good in The Village, seems like a near perfect casting choice for the sea nymph role here. She has this eerie haunting beauty that makes her look other worldly. As for Giamatti, this isn’t exactly his typical sort of movie he always puts in a good performance. It’ll be interesting to see him in a genre piece.<br /><br />What I’m not so sure about are those creatures that threaten the sea nymph and her people. Are they actual wolves or fairy tale monsters? Or maybe it’s just some of the neighborhood kids running around in furry costumes and scaring people in an attempt to keep their community intact. (I’m sorry, I couldn’t help myself) <br /><br />Beyond whether or not the conflict of the story in LITW will work, the more important issue lie in how it will affect Shyamalan’s reputation as a film maker. I have a tremendous amount of respect for this man and his work. Besides Sixth Sense, which was universally lauded and loved, I was a big fan of both Unbreakable and Signs. But Shyamalan’s popularity seems to have faded as his films have gone on and took a sharp plummet after The Village. (Many hated The Village, I wasn’t one of those people, I thought it was misguided but OK) It seems that LITW will seal his fate. I’m almost as curious as to what the general audience reaction will be as I am to see the movie itself.<br /><br />The real looming question here is, will there be a twist ending? It is Shyamalan’s wacky twist endings that have become his signature trademark over the years. All of his recent works, with arguably the exception of Signs, have had a big reveal at the end. But what was once considered genius (in Sixth Sense) became perceived as a gimmick (The Village). I think the biggest surprise Shyamalan could give his fans here is to forgo his traditional ending, and rely solely on his masterful storytelling.Kalindahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18379135879333989581noreply@blogger.com12tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419527.post-1147118516647867262006-05-08T12:55:00.000-07:002006-05-08T13:47:38.563-07:00Summer Is Here: MISSION IMPOSSIBLE 3As I giddily walked into the Cinerama Dome this weekend with my compatriots, I felt ready and eager to start the summer movie season. It's not that I was dying to see Mission Impossible 3. It's that I was dying to celebrate the kickoff of my favorite movie time of the year. Most people count off the days on their calendar till the fall and winter arrives, when the "award" films start hitting the theatres, but not I. I await with baited breath for the first big blockbuster in May to signal the slew of monsters, car chases, and super powers that are unleashed by the studios every year without fail. Every summer promises to be bigger than the last, and though that that's not always necessarily the case, it's always fun to suss out the line up and hope for the best. As an adult, summer movies are one of the last things we can cling to that reek of childhood. Gone are the last days of school, and the sweet sensation of finishing your last final and walking out into that warm summer air. Lining up on the street each balmy Friday night of summer and munching on popcorn reminds of being a kid again. We all need that escape from the drudgery filled reality of our lives.But enough sentimentality, and onto the movie. I walked into MI3 with mixed expectations. I liked the first one, but couldn't abide the second one. I thought the <a href = http://www.apple.com/trailers/paramount/missionimpossibleiii/ target = "_blank"> trailer </a> was well done, and I'm a big fan of JJ Abrams, but I still wasn't convinced that the movie was going to be any better than bearable. <br /><br />I was pleasantly surprised. MI3 had great action sequences, a fun cast, and cool spy gear. I realize I'm not talking about anything to revolutionary here, and while I do believe that summer movies CAN have depth, MI3 wasn't one of them. But that was OK by me, because I think it completely succeeded in its endeavors. <br /><br />The movie goes something like this. IMF employee Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) is engaged to Julia (Michelle Monaghan), a lovely nurse. Ethan no longer goes out on missions, and chooses to train new faces instead. When his superior, John Musgrave (Billy Cruddup) asks him to go on a mission to rescue junior agent Lindsey Farris (Keri Russel), Ethan agrees against his better judgement. Ethan teams up with his old buddy Luther (Ving Rhames), and attractive newbies, Declan (Jonathan Rhys-Meyers) and Zhen (Maggie Q). Together they travel to Berlin where Lindsey has been abducted by master mind black market criminal, Owen Davian (Phillip Seymour Hoffman). Their rescue mission doesn't go as planned, and when the team returns to IMF headquarters, Ethan does a little research on Davian. With the help of tech guru, Benji (Simon Pegg) Ethan learns that Davian is about to acquire a top secret piece of merchandise known as the rabbit's foot. Ethan and his crew head back over seas, this time to Rome, where they intend to capture Davian and acquire the rabbit's foot. Ethan conducts these operations without the knowledge and approval of IMF head, John Brassel (Laurence Fishburne). The rest of the movie tracks Ethan and co. as they chase Davian and the rabbit's foot. Along the way, Davian kidnaps Julia, and the stakes are raised, as her life is now added to the equation.<br /><br /> First off, did anyone notice the INSANE cast list I just rattled off? The most impressive element of this movie might just be the fact that Abrams corralled all these different actors under one title. I enjoyed the diversity of the casting, but at times couldn't help but notice the looming spectre of globalization, as Asian super star Maggie Q fired guns next to UK film star Johnathan Rhys-Myers, and so on. Still, I'm not complaining, I enjoyed the myriad of hot shots, and it was nice to see Abrams bring in some of his old standbys like Keri Russel and even Greg Grunberg for a lil cameo. Everyone put in a solid performance, which comprised mostly of looking really suave, and even Cruise, who wears a little thin recently, delivered. Actually my favorite description of his performance was written by Todd McCarthy of Variety, who put it brilliantly when he said Cruise was "determined to give a persuasive human impersonation of a Ferrari." I really couldn't have said it any better myself. <br /><br />The thing about this movie was, there wasn't really much of a story. It was just a series of missions attempting to retrieve someone or something. The first mission was to bring back Agent Farris, the second was to arrest Davian, and the third was to rescue Julia. The issue of the rabbit's foot was secondary, because even though it was a necessary plot mechanism we never find out what it is, or what it's remotely about. Not only does the rabbit's foot remain a mystery, but Davian as a villain, remains pretty vague and ambiguous; he's a "bad guy" in the broadest sense of the term. We learn early on that he traffics in information and illegal goods with subversive foreign governments. Davian is sadistic, he enjoys torturing people, and does not value human life, but his ultimate goals remain evasive. Does he want to take over the world? Infect the human population with a deadly virus? Or does he just enjoy crime for the thrill of it, and to maintain a luxurious lifestyle. I think the filmmakers were trying to say that it doesn't matter, and that any explanation would sound ridiculous, so why not for go it. Still, while it was fun watching Phillip Seymour Hoffman take on a role like this, I would have liked to see him have a little more to work with. <br /><br />The script was definitely on the lighter side, as in not too much dialogue. There was a lot of action, A LOT. My favorite part of the film was when Ethan and Co. broke into the Vatican to snag Davian. I enjoyed watching the agents use their high tech gadgetry in heist like scenarios, more than the machine guns firing into an explosive abyss. Don't get me wrong, the first action sequence in Berlin was incredible, both the stuff on the ground and in the air. But by the time the highway sequence rolled around, with the missile launchers and overturned SUV's, I was starting the flinch a little bit. The style of this action sequence in particular that one, was very harsh. It had that shaky hand held camera work, crazy angles, and mile a minute cuts. You blink and you loose about a thousand frames. The gritty filters and constant movement was too much even for me at times, and I'm normally not sensitive to that sort of thing. I also found the base jumping from the tippy tops of Shanghai sky scrapers preferable over the blitzkrieg of gunfire. <br /><br />I liked this movie. It's hard not to smile when you see Cruise and co. in their best Armani sunglasses coasting on a motor boat in Rome; it inevitably emotes "cool". There was a nice light hearted feel to much of the film, and even some humor, provided primarily by Shaun of the Dead's Simon Pegg. JJ Abrams did a fine job directing the film, both in capturing the right attitudes from his stars, and choreographing visual sequences. But I didn't love this movie, because there wasn't much to love. The heart of MI3, which was meant to be Ethan's love for his fiance/wife Julia, served to sell the action in the movie, but wasn't dimensional enough to make him a true protagonist. Action movies, like any movie, can have emotionally resonant moments: think Die Hard and Lethal Weapon. Those felt like movies about actual people. MI3 though quite enjoyable, felt like a movie about celebrities and explosions. <br /><br />Of course a little FX driven escapism never hurt anyone, and I think it was a pretty good kickoff to the summer movie fair. Mmmm, I can smell the cotton candy in the air already…<br /><br /><img src = http://static.flickr.com/56/142959711_027a87b677.jpg>Kalindahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18379135879333989581noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419527.post-1146851511430682792006-05-05T10:51:00.000-07:002006-05-05T10:51:51.443-07:00Lucas Redeemed!!I just read an <a href = http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12633396/ target = “_blank”> article </a> on MSNBC this morning announcing that the original three Star Wars films are to be released on DVD in their original formats! That means no special edition hoo haa! Hooray! <br /><br />Goodbye wormy looking baby Jabba, farewell Gredo shooting first, and welcome back original Jub-Jub ewok ending. I am thrilled beyond words. Up until now I’ve had to get by on DVD burns of the original laser disc editions that a friend of mine got off Ebay. The quality was passable, but it was disappointing to go without the original DVD cover art and special features. For a long time I held out and refused to buy the Star Wars Special Edition DVD box set when it was released in the fall of 2004. Finally this year, I received it as a gift, and resigned myself to the fact that the original films were never to be released in my lifetime. Others may have suspected that this was not true, but I had lost all hope. Lucas made it very clear that he held the final answer in the matter, and that he wasn’t about to budge<br /><br />Some may complain that this is just another ploy on behalf of Lucasfilm to make more money, but I disagree. I think that finally things are being handled as they should have been all along. Whether or not the Special Editions should have ever been made is a separate issue. Now that the Special Editions do exist, it is only fair and just that both editions be availible to the public. <br /><br />For me, the moments I’ll be most happy to see in crystal clear DVD format are the original songs of Jedi. The original tune that the band play’s in Jabba’s palace is way better than the loopy, pyschotically upbeat song that replaced it. The rousing Ewok song at the celebration in the end is also far better than the new age laser rock of the S.E. I’ll also be pleased to see Sebastian Shaw’s kindly spectral face next to Obi-Wan, as opposed to Hayden Christenson. I never understood why he changed that. <br /><br /><img src = http://static.flickr.com/52/140931876_66fa818749.jpg>Kalindahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18379135879333989581noreply@blogger.com12tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419527.post-1146778973606546602006-05-04T14:42:00.000-07:002006-05-06T02:13:17.336-07:00HUGE LOST! (spoilers)Last night’s episode of LOST had some crazy stuff happening all around. Michael resurfacing from the Jungle. Henry Gale leaking out more information about his people and his “mission.” Ana Lucia’s flashback revealing that she spent some QT with Jack’s father. Ana Lucia and Sawyer getting it on (oo la la), and of course the grande finale where all hell broke loose in the hatch.<br /><br />First, a look back on Michelle Rodrguez’s character, Ana Lucia. When the episode started and I realized it was going to be another flashback for her I was excited. I know I’m in the minority here, but I liked this character. She was something new and different, a female, hispanic cop with an attitude. I know a lot of people felt that she was very one note, and just angry and tough all of the time. But I think that last night more than ever, revealed that she had a heart and soul and wasn’t just programmed to be tough 100% percent of the time. In particular, I liked unlike Kate, who’s painted as being a saint even though she’s done some terrible things, --Ana Lucia’s nature was dealt with in a frank fashion. Yes, she had done some bad things, and made mistakes, but she didn’t put on a sweet face at every turn. With her it was what you see is what you get. <br /><br />Now as for the whole coincidence of her meeting up with Jack’s father and jaunting off to Austrailia, --I wasn’t that crazy about it. Yes, there was a neat parallel about the fact that Ana met Jack in a similar fashion to the way she met his father –at an airpot bar. But it was a bit of a stretch that “Tom” would ask her to come to Australia to be his body guard. It would seem more likely that a man of his age and situation would be more interested in having a fling from her, than seeking “protection”. Though the fact is he was probably just lonely and wanted some company, it was still an odd way to frame it. From an abstract perspective, I like the idea of two lost souls travelling to Australia to drown their sorrows, (after all Australia is historically THE place to start a new life). But if didn’t exactly make for a very exciting or action packed flashback. I do think the coincidences are getting totally out of hand at this point. I mean the tidbit where Jack’s dad opens the car door onto Sawyer was just too much –I nearly laughed out loud.<br />They’re going over the top with these connections and I find myself more and more suspicious of the reasoning for all of it. <br /><br />Alright, onto Henry Gale; he alluded to some interesting things this episode. He seemed to know all about Ana Lucia and Goodwin, the Other that Ana had killed. The question is how? Do the Others have some sort of advanced surveillance system (maybe the black smoke) that watches all of the survivors all of the time? What’s more is, Gale implied that the Others had passed some sort of moral judgements on her and the other survivors. Ana is a bad one, and Locke is a good one. Could this be true, or was this just Gale playing more mind games with everyone? Locke made a good point when he asked Gale why he tried to kill Ana Lucia, but he didn’t kill or hurt him when he had the chance. I was also curious about Gale’s apparent mission to bring Locke back. Locke has certainly had a strong connection with the island and it seems the Others might know about it. The idea that the Others are watching them, and seem to know and document their behavior, certainly adds a lot of creedence to the whole “experiment” theory. Did anyone catch the commercial for the Hanso Foundation? I had to rewind my TiVo to catch it, and I didn’t call the number, but check out the <a href = http://www.thehansofoundation.org/ target = “_blank”> website </a>. Lengthening life expecatancy? Studies on exotic animals and mental illness? Curing detrimental diseases? It’s all leading to some unveiling of a science project with a grand design.<br /><br /> As for the big shoot out at the end, I must confess, I didn’t see it coming. When Michael came out of his “sleep”, he seemed frazzled and disoriented, but certainly not furtive, let alone psychotic. I bought what he said about the Others having minimal living standards, and few weapons. But now that we know he’s got a screw loose, who knows how much of what he revealed about the Others is true. Is he setting up all the survivors for a big trap? And this is the other thing, why exactly did Michael kill Ana and Libby. It seems to be the general consensus that he only killed Libby because he was startled, and initially he only meant to kill Ana. Did he strike up a bargain with the others? Did they tell him if he let Henry Gale free they would give back Walt.? But if that were the case, he wouldn’t necessarily need to have killed Ana –he could have just knocked her out, or waited until the Hatch was empty. Maybe it was that the Others wanted specific revenge on Ana for killing Goodwin. This is the other thing, it’s sort of interesting that the two actresses who have recently had some trouble with the <a href = http://www.thehawaiichannel.com/news/5451956/detail.html target = “_blank”> law </a>, were the ones who’s characters were eliminated last night. Definitely all food for thought. <br /><br />There is of course, also the issue of the “sickness” which Rousseau has referred to oft. In the past she has claimed that all her fellow crew members became “infected” and killed one another. Is it possible that Michael has gotten sick, and if so is it a biological virus, or psychological decompensation? I was a bit annoyed that they showed Michael alive and well in the scenes for next week’s episode. It would have been much more a cliffhanger if we were unsure that he had made it as they fade out just as he shoots himself. We can only assume that Henry Gale is now either gone or dead. My gut instinct was that Michael killed him, on order by the Others to make sure no more information gets leaked out. But on second thought if Michael was fufilling his part of the deal on behalf of the Others, it was more likely that he set Henry free.Kalindahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18379135879333989581noreply@blogger.com14tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419527.post-1146611033418984142006-05-02T16:03:00.000-07:002006-05-02T16:05:06.896-07:00Holy Hijinx Batman, the new Superman trailer is up!!Ok. Must control breathing….must type out words…. <br /><br />Just finished watching the full length <a href = http://www.apple.com/trailers/wb/supermanreturns/ target = “_blank”> Superman Returns trailer </a>, that was posted on <a href = http://www.apple.com/trailers target = “_blank”> Apple Trailers </a> today. <br /><br />It is without a doubt, amazing. I thought the teaser was incredible, with its majestic images, flashbulb storytelling, and original Marlon Brando voice over, but the trailer surpasses it. The teaser’s quick cuts lured us to the edges of Superman’s world, and touched upon pivotal moments of his character. The trailer gave a complete vision of what this world would be like. <br /><br />First of all –Lex Luthor. Kevin Spacey looked just the part with his shaved, polished head and smug smile. I still think it will be near impossible to surpass Gene Hackman’s performance from the original Richard Donner film. Hackman’s zealous characterization of the villain was unforgettable, and his comedic repor with Ned Beatty’s, Otis was hilarious. Still it seems like Spacey’s Lex is going to be just as spunky and smart alecky –the scene where he tells Lois to repeat what she said is cute. As with Lex Luthor’s role in the ’78 version, --no one will ever be able to trump Jackie Cooper as newspaper boss, Perry White, --he was just too perfect. But I trust Frank Langella will do a good job –I like his delivery of dialogue in the trailer, and I thought he put in a solid performance in a similar role as William Paley in Good Night, and Good Luck. Even Kate Bosworth, who normally doesn’t strike my fancy, puts forth a sweet, almost bookish Lois Lane. I like that they stuck to Lois’ originally brunette coif, and conservative outfits. I had no idea that Lane’s subplot involved her getting married and having a kid, but I think its definitely an interesting way to go, so long as they steer clear of a lot of goofy kid jokes. As for Brandon Routh. He couldn’t look more the part. It’s almost eerie how closely he channels Christopher Reeve from the original films. Routh has piercing eyes and a handsome face, but only time will tell if he’s really got the acting chops to make the performance resonate. I’m certainly hopeful from the glimpses of his expressive features in the trailer that he will be able to cut the mustard.<br /><br />The camera work and VFX for this film are artistically done, it ‘s all very impressive stuff. The shot of Superman hovering above earth in space, with his cap fluttering into the darkness is gorgeous. The framing of the shot takes the sensibility of a comic book panel and gives it a cinematic twist. Clark Kent’s giant leap into the lush green cornfields, is equally stunning. The flying looks great, and I love the dark hushed art deco flair of the buildings in Metropolis. That shot of the people standing in the street and looking up at the sky, which was in the teaser, still gets me everytime. The shot Superman and Lois floating up in front of the revolving Daily Planet globe is very fetching. I love that they are keeping the original John Williams theme, though Williams himself did not score Superman Returns, and I’m curious to see, or rather hear, what the composer decided to do for the rest of the film. Luthor’s ship on the water looks a little off, but the sequence with the Superman and the fierly plane among the clouds is bound to be memorable. <br /><br />As far as trailers go, I thought this one was really sleekily done. The editing, the timing of the music, and the shots. It was all pitch perfect. Spiderman 2 still remains my favorite of the recent comic superhero films but based off this trailer, I think Supes might give Spidey a bit of a run for his money…<br /><br />I am REALLY excited for this movie. Fifty nine days and counting!!<br /><br /><img src = http://static.flickr.com/47/139373455_fec996b66c.jpg>Kalindahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18379135879333989581noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419527.post-1146521906115279712006-05-01T15:17:00.000-07:002006-05-01T15:18:26.130-07:00Sopranos Hits Its StrideIt wasn’t so long ago that I was bellyaching about the slow, strange pace of The Sopranos this season. It wasn’t really until the fifth episode, “Mr. and Mrs. John Sacrimoni Request” that things started to get interesting for me. Tony was released from the boredom of his bizarre coma world and began to face the reality of the power vaccum that had been created in his absence. The disintegration of Johnny Sac’s image coupled with Tony’s own fears about his personal weakness made for an important and compelling episode. Of course the biggest event of the episode was the run in between Vito and a couple mobsters at a gay club. I thought the episode was good, but portions of it dragged a bit; still I felt hopeful about the future of the season. <br /><br />The sixth episode “Live Free or Die” continued to give us a payoff after a season and a half worth of build up on Vito’s secret. The Vito subplot really exhibits the power and cleverness of the Sopranos writers. I for one, am putty in their hands when it comes to their portrayal of characters. I never really liked Vito before this season, most likely because the writers didn’t want me too. He was made to look like a mean spirited, sneaky guy who would kill family if necessary and stab his boss in the back. Even when they threw in the seed for Vito’s preferences last season, it still wasn’t in the context of making him a sympathetic character. A few episodes back he was plotting ways to sneak extra money while Tony was in the hospital. But somehow in episode six, Live Free or Die, I suddenly found myself rooting for Vito. Once outed, Vito was in a very compromising position, and this added a dimension of vulnerability and despair to his character. Whereas two weeks ago I wanted to kick him for trying to withhold collection money from Carmella, I was now suddenly hoping that he could find peace and quiet in the New Hampshire countryside. There was something strangely touching about watching him discover what life could be like if he lived in a more tolerant community. <br /><br />Last week’s episode “The Luxury Lounge” had some great scenes, but was a mixed bag for me. I loved the plot with Artie, in part because I just think he’s a great character, and I like that he’s been around since the beginning of the show. Artie is such a melodramatic and tortured guy, and yet he’s a chef at a resturant, not a mob boss. He has such a unique relationship with Tony, and the juxtapositions and collisions of their two worlds are often humorous and even poignant at times. I also like Benny’s character, played by good old Max Casella, who I will forever associate with Doogie Howser, Ed Wood, and of course Newsies. (By the way, while googling Casella, I came across some <a href = http://www.geocities.com/newsies_fanfic/ target = “_blank”> Newsies fan fiction </a>…who knew?) The conflict between Benny and Artie played out unexpectedly; I really thought Artie was going off the deep end when he went to Benny’s house to confront him about the credit card scam. Yet again Tony intervened to save Artie, but I’m curious to see how this new tension resolves itself in the future. The portion of the episode that I wasn’t crazy about was Christopher’s “business” trip to LA. Sometimes when the Sopranos go to Hollywood it’s fun and funny, but at other times it’s forced and smug. I thought this episode was one of those latter occasions. It was funny to see Christopher foisted onto Ben Kingsley with his pitch, but the idea of the luxury lounge itself seemed pointless. Sure, rich people get all sorts of things for free, and it’s a bit ridiculous and annoying, but what did that have to do with anything? Christopher’s enthusiam for the merchandise handed out was curious because one would assume he could nab any of those fancy watches or fashionable sunglasses when they fell off the back of the truck. The scenes of Christopher in LA, were surely meant to show that his addiction problem was on the rise again and to plant the seeds of conflict between his mob business and movie business. But by the fourth time he had an awkward run in with Ben Kingsley it got a little old. A good episode, but I wasn’t enthralled by it.<br /><br />Last night’s episode “Johnny Cakes” was the best episode of the season by far, and in my mind, the strongest in quite some time. There were so many elements coming into play here, so many vital moments and decisions for characters and themes woven in with each other seamlessly. First off, I loved the underlying motif of globalization that ran through the entire episode. The scene with the men from Tony’s crew in the would be Starbuck’s and the issue of the Jamba Juice buyout were great because they reflected not only the current changes in our society, but the way that these changes might affect the mafia. After all the mob could be considered one of the oldest mom and pop institutions around. Throughout the episode Tony was faced with a bevy of important decisions, critical to the direction of his character. The fact that he walked out on Julianna, the real estate beauty, was huge. Never in the history of The Sopranos, has Tony’s conscious really kicked in over his perpetual unfaithfulness to Carmella. Sure he’s felt some guilt in the past, but it’s never stopped him from acting on his impulses. The temptations for Tony in this episode were neatly layered over one another. He had the choice of cheating on Carmella, and forgetting not only his marriage vows but all the recent outpouring of love and support she has given him; he chose not to. But Tony didn’t get away completely clean. When faced with the choice, by the same woman, to give up part of the culture and heritage of his neighborhood for some extra cash, Tony was torn, but eventually gave in when the monetary compensation was great enough. Both these choices were ones that resonated with the very core of who Tony is. As he struggled with what was right and wrong, he also had to watch his son AJ do the same. In this episode we saw more of AJ’s tough guy posturing and rude antics, but we also saw the underbelly of what drives his behavior. It was interesting to see AJ at a club, meek and inexperienced, feeling that the only thing he had to trade on was his family name. His attempt to kill Junior was pathetic, but also sad, and the scene that followed in the parking lot after with Tony was moving. There they were, father and son standing in front of one another. AJ wanting to be like his father, and do right by him, but Tony wishing to eradicate the traces he saw of himself in his son. His desire for AJ to be a “nice guy” –not one immersed in the crime underworld was made tragic in the face of his realization that AJ probably would not be able to escape the lifestyle he, himself had led. Vito too, was faced with huge decisions, as he struggled with his identity, unsure of how to deal with his feelings for another man. The better things get for Vito, the more I clench my teeth, because it seems like an inevitablity that he if he does find true happiness, it will be only a matter of time before he is hunted down and killed by his former friends and associates. <br /><br />Overall I thought it was a terrific episode, and it seems like things are really starting to get rolling for the grand finale.Kalindahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18379135879333989581noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419527.post-1146260722090583222006-04-28T14:37:00.000-07:002006-04-28T14:45:22.276-07:00More Marvel, More SuperherosToday, <a href = http://www.thehollywoodreporter.com target = “_blank”> The Hollywood Reporter </a> posted an <a href = http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr/film/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002424612 target = “_blank”> article </a> about the huge new slate of superhero films that Marvel Films plans to churn out starting in 2008. This panoply includes, a sequel to the 2003 release of Hulk (which I thought Ang Lee turned into a visual stunner, even though everyone else on the planet seemed to hate it), an Iron Man film to be directed by Jon Favreau, an Ant Man film written by Edgar Wright (writer/director of Shaun of the Dead), and a Captain America film, among others. <br /><br />I’m all for comic book movies, but I’m curious about how this pack of films will do in the near future. Like anything else in pop culture, superheros have waxed and waned over the decades. In ’78 when the original Superman was released, it was a huge hit, and spawned three sequels, which all declined in quality bit by bit after the first entry. Tim Burton’s Batman in ’89 launched the caped crusader craze which was to last through the 90’s before petering out in ’97 with the infamous Batman Forever. In 2000, the first of the nouveau superhero films hit with Bryan Singer’s X-Men, and since then it seems that a superhero cinema craze has hit like never before. This decade, I think in retrospect, will be known as the decade of the superhero. The past six years have seen three X-Men films, two Spiderman films, a Hulk film, a Punisher film, a Daredevil film, an Elektra film, a Fantastic Four film, and the revitalization of the Batman and Superman franchises. Not to mention the various sequels for these films that are already careening down the pipeline to a theatre near you. Soon to be releases include another Spiderman, another Batman, Wonderwoman, and now, the multi-picture barrage of films from Marvel. <br /><br />It seems to me like it’s only a matter of time before the public gets burnt out on all this. There will be a superhero backlash as people tire of accidents involving radiation and hi-tech gadgets. Or will they? Are the basic components of the superhero genre so universal –so relatable, that they remain invincible? Even when the comic book/superhero movie market dies down, it only seems to do so for a couple of years before it starts up again. It’s true that people never seem to tire of the summer Hollywood blockbuster formula. But there’s also a certain “special” quality that I think is attached to this genre of films, an originality; dare I say magical at the risk of sounding foolishly sentimental. I would hate to see the superhero film become so ordinary and commonplace that it is as predictable and formulaic as your average studio romantic comedy or thriller. I’m sure many would argue it’s already too late for that, that the superhero film has been normalized into the swill of mediocrity that floats through our cineplexes. It’s true there have been some doozies. Fantastic Four and Daredevil, to name a couple, were both pretty dreadful. But the X-Men and Spiderman movies have managed to keep their heads above water, and at times achieve greatness (at least for now, knock on wood). <br /><br />The films described in The H Reporter article make mention of some promising elements. In particular I like the description of the take on Captain America for the feature film:<br /><br />"He's a Norman Rockwell character who is faced with today's America and is forced to look at his own past, things in the '40s that weren't necessarily what they were cracked up to be, and also how today's country may be different than it looks,"<br /><br />I like the fact that they intend to imbue a character whose name implies blind optimism and nostalgic patriotism with some introspection about his own values. It’s things like that which differentiate the best of the superhero films from action films with elaborate costumes <br /><br />But there are other pieces in the article which make me scratch my head a bit. For instance, when did Jon Favreau become the go-to Superhero/sci-fi director around town? Don’t get me wrong, I think the guy is a funny actor, and I thought Elf was cute, but now all of a sudden he’s directing John Carter of Mars, and Iron Man. Was it all that “buzz” from his last feature directorial effort, Zathura? I find that hard to believe because that movie, though not necessarily Favreau’s fault, was pretty bad. The Nick Fury film, will be adapted by screenwriter Andrew Marlow, who aso wrote Hollow Man and End of Days. Egads. I guess it’s good that Marvel is trying to bring in some fresh blood into the world of superhero films, who may incorporate the sensibilities from their other work into the adaptations. But I will say that after reading the article, it evoked an image of the Marvel films world as being a gigantic boy’s club; not a single female writer, director, or producer seemed to be involed in any of these films. Harumph. I for one think it would be interesting to see a woman's take on some of these iconic characters. <br /><br />I’m sure I’ll see most if not all of these films when they’re released. That is if the superhero bubble hasn’t burst by ’08… <br /><br /><img src = http://static.flickr.com/44/136571858_1f0938b3b2.jpg>Kalindahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18379135879333989581noreply@blogger.com6