WOULD YOU LOVE ME, LOVE ME, LOVE ME?

- If you watch Lost you probably already know by now that the last episode ended with an event that is either a game-changing twist or a massive red herring depending on how it plays out from here. Still, whichever way it does go, I'm really pumped for next week because of it.

And this was a primo episode even without that big reveal. It may have something to do with the fact that Sayid is one of my favourite characters on the show, but I thought that this one had what a lot of this season's episodes have been lacking. Namely, a sense of personal investment in the overall plot. Lost can throw out off-kilter twists and shifting allegiances like nobody's business (and I'll still be at least intrigued) but what separates, in my mind, a merely good Lost episode from a truly great one is that I get into it on an emotional level as well as an intellectual one. Not to say that this has been a bad season (in terms of plot, it's one of the best so far) but, in all honesty, I haven't really felt all that much watching these episodes. Even "Life and Death of Jeremy Bentham", which I thought I would love as it was a Locke episode, worked more as a piece-mover than a human drama; Ben killing Locke was surprising and thought-provoking, sure, but I was more intrigued than truly frightened by it. There's been no episode in season 5 as richly romantic as "The Glass Ballerina" or "The Constant" or one as tragic as "Through The Looking Glass" or, for that matter, as action-packed as "The Economist".

"He's Our You" worked for a few reasons but the biggest one was the emotion invested in the story by Sayid. Special credit for this episode to Naveen Andrews as he really convinced me here, giving just enough levity to his character (I loved his conversation in the bar and his reaction to be drugged) to let his somber tones hit that much harder. At the heart of Sayid is this grand conflict, addressed head-on in this episode, that he's a man who is basically built to be violent, and is very good at it, but who desperately wants to change. But, the theme of this year of Lost being destiny, he can't escape his nature, he's a killer: always has been (as shown in a great flashback to his childhood), always will be.

I was sorta disappointed at the appearance of the DHARMA torturer (the "our you" mentioned in the title), mostly because the payoff fell short of the set-up (though he could make some more appearances to confirm his supposed psychopathy in later episodes) and, as always, many unanswered questions remain (chiefly, what the hell was up with that flaming van?). Also, this is something that's been bugging me for a while: Does every male character (with the exception of Hurley) need to have father issues? It seems that all the guy's dads were either abusive or abandoned their children or were corrupt or weren't their real dad or something. I understand (and, to a degree, can relate) that the generation of the characters/writers on the show was largely failed by its male role models in general and its fathers in specific but it's a bit much. However, I'm much more willing to forgive plot annoyances and dramatic flat notes when I have a genuine caring for the people involved, as I did here.

One of the reasons I like Lost as much as I do is because it crosses genres freely and non-intrusively: pop-sci-fi and romantic drama and island-survival tale and human interest and mystic incantation all exist on the same level here and, when it all comes together just right, it's quite a beautiful result. And even when the mix is a little off, it's still better than almost anything else on TV.

But, about that twist: Sayid shoots Ben in 1977, Ben may or may not be dead. The message boards have lit up with discussion over this but I'm gonna take a "wait and see" attitude towards it until next week when we see the full result. For all we know, Ben could get up and be just fine (remember how the Island healed Locke?) but, if he is dead, it introduces a lot of fascinating possibilities. Also, here's something interesting: the episode description for two weeks from now reads as follows: "To atone for sins of the past, Ben must attempt to summon the smoke monster in order to be judged". That would suggest that Ben lives but the episode's title is "Dead Is Dead". Anyways, the only thing tempering my excitement for next week is that "Whatever Happened, Happened" is a Kate-centric episode and I don't really like that character. Even so, I'm back into the groove with Lost and I hope it keeps itself to this level of storytelling.

I WAS A FINE IDEA AT THE TIME

- Resident Evil 5 can be boiled down as such: Black Hawk Down + 28 Days Later + Resident Evil 4's gameplay + explosions - annoying female characters. In my mind, that's pretty good.

The complaints people had about the clunkiness of the controls in 4 still stand (and it's sort of more egregious in the wake of Gears Of War which allowed you to, gasp, move and shoot at the same time) and the inventory system remains bothersome. Still, the inability to move and shoot simultaneously gives the action/gameplay its own distinct, slower-paced, flavour which, at this point, is basically the only connection the classic Resident Evils that the game has.

Also, I'm sort of grooving on the story, as simplistic and cheesy as it is, I think that this plot could make a halfway decent action movie (at any rate, it would almost certainly be better than the actual Resident Evil movies). To address the whole "racism" issue briefly: there are certainly some colonial-era images present in the game's portrayal of the Africans (the "voodoo village" level is particularly bad in this respect) but the it's fairly even-handed about giving positive portrayals to balance things out (not just your sidekick, who's the whitest African ever I might add, but also in the black members of the military who help you out) and making it clear that the parasite is causing the behavior of the villagers (though the racial variety among the enemies is sorta weird, particularly the Greek-looking enemy type). And, let's be honest, no one's really taking this plot seriously anyway and the giant ogres and mutated squids should tell you that much.

My biggest complaint here is that the game seems to be straining to re-capture all the awesome moments from 4 by having an exact duplicate: both games having crazy chainsaw dudes, giant ogres and other such things. It's sorta distracting; that said, it's a lot of fun and I'm only about halfway through, so, hopefully there's a lot more to come.

- A wise man (intertainment expert Daryl Surat) once said that the only way to conquer something as vast and limitless as the Internet is to divide it into parts and conquer these parts. Well, I'm going to follow that advice. During the summer this year, I'm going to start a podcast with a friend which will mostly be about movies but will also cover some other pop culture stuff. I'm going to keep this blog going as a general lifestyle/pop-culture thing but I'm also going to start another one the purpose of which is, as of this writing, known only to basically one person. Suffice to say, it is a project that I am undertaking for a variety or reasons and one that, if it does not kill me, will make me so much the stronger. It will start sometime in late May, so, look out for it.

FIND MY HARBORCOAT, CAN'T GO OUTSIDE WITHOUT IT

Long time, no post:

- There's been two pretty good episodes of 24 since I last posted. Highlights:

- Jack gets into a car and finds an open laptop on the seat.
- Jack's white-fu showdown with Quinn AKA Bizarro Jack Bauer, climaxing in Jack throwing a screwdriver through a bulletproof vest.
- "If you want to kill me, you have to look me in the eyes", "Alright"
- Senator Mayor AKA Red Foreman AKA the sniper dude from Robocop died; single tear. I was disappointed that he didn't call Jack a dumbass or tell him that the Tigers were playing tonight, though.
- Colm Feore's back!
- Jon Voight is basically the guy who runs Blackwater.
- Tony got captured!
- Good firefight at the loading docks.
- The bad guys clearly know who they're up against because they send an attack helicopter to take out Jack.
- Jack's exposed to the gas: OH NOES.

- Lost was pretty good last week but I don't have much to say about it. It was just a good, solid episode; nothing particularly great but it moved everything along very well. I was also very intrigued by Sayid meeting a young Ben at the end of the episode.

Films I saw over the March Break:

Step-Brothers:
As dumb comedies go, this is a pretty good one. John C. Reiley and Will Ferrel work very well together and that chemistry is able to redeem some, though not all, of the cruder bits. There's also some surprisingly witty banter going on. I'm getting really tired of Ferrel's shtick but I'll give this one a pass.

Punisher: War Zone:
Let me put it this way: Would you like to see a film where someone shoots people while spinning on a chandelier and then rams a chair leg through some dude's eyeball? If you said yes, this one is for you. The "plot" was so simple as to be non-existent, the acting (with the exception of a hilariously over-acting Dominic West as the crime boss) was flat and bland and the film generally reeks of the kind of b-action stink usually reserved for mid-80's Chuck Norris fare. But the action scenes are impeccably constructed with lots of "bam" moments and good variety (firefights here, semi-kung-fu there), so, if you feel like turning your brain off and enjoying some mindless violence for a while there are definitely a lot worse ways to spend your time.

Transporter 3:
A big problem with modern action movies is the choppiness of the fight scenes and this is my big complaint here: everything is cut at such a furious clip there's so sense of scale or chance to absorb anything. The Statham redeems it somewhat and some cool stuff couldn't be ruined by the direction (the car chase was pretty cool, Statham using his shirt to fight a guy was funny) but, overall I just wasn't feeling this one. That said, the acting was good all around and the premise allowed for some good moments. Still, when the point of your movie is action, the action scenes need to be great and, here, they weren't.

Rocknrolla:
Guy Richie's gig is wearing a bit thin on me but this is his best movie since Snatch, not that that's saying very much. Still, the acting worked well, the characters were enjoyably quirky (if a bit less crazy than Richie's other films) and it represents a step forward for Richie in a couple of ways. First, there's actually a female character in one of his movies for once! She's kinda stereotypical but I liked the way Thandie Newton played her. Second, and this was very surprising to me, the gay dude wasn't played as an offensive stereotype; he was just another member of Gerard Butler's group, sexuality near-irrelevant save a couple of quick bits of jokey banter and a rather hilarious dance scene between him and Butler. The plot was a bit too twisty for its own good (I got lost somewhere in all the property-dealing talk) and I think that one more movie of this type is all I can tolerate from Richie. But, for now, this an entertaining bit of gangland whimsy, though I'd still say to watch Snatch before any of his other films.

Know1ng:
Rating for this movie without The Cage: 3/10 (bad Christian symbolism, cheesy SFX, okay acting, end-of-days plot that would have been old hat in the 80's)
Rating for this movie with The Cage: 8/10 (More crazy twitches and nutso eyes than you can shake a stick at. He also unveils some new Cage hand motions. No "Put the bunny back in the box" or "Get off the bike"-level quotes, though)

That's all for now, I'll talk about Resident Evil 5 when I've played a bit more.

VIDEO KILLED THE RADIO STAR

I'm too lazy to type tonight so I recorded something:

Here

CINDERELLA, SHE SEEMS SO EASY

Watchmen is a good movie but I sort of wish I hadn't read the comic before seeing it. You might be asking why because I like the comic a lot but the answer is very simple: With one exception late in the film, it's just the comic word-for-word, event-for-event. This meant that I knew every action and plot twist before it occurred and, thus, I became disinterested at points. It almost felt as if I were watching the movie for a second time. Now, I'm sure the more hard-edged Watchmen fans will love this ultra-faithful approach (and it's clear that director Zack Synder has a great love for the comic) but, I dunno, I wanted some level of surprise or shock.

That said, if you, like most of my friends, haven't read the comic, you'll probably like this one a lot. Watchmen, for all of its minute flaws, has always had a interesting, vaguely-noir, plot and nuanced characters and the film gets that across very well. Also, I think the change that was made, although it was probably for budgetary reasons, actually makes the ending more credible, but that's just me.

Technically speaking, it's also a very well-made movie, with excellent costume design and sets that capture the look of Dave Gibbons' original comic artwork. The CGI looked good for the most part (although the glass castle on Mars looked kinda cheap), as well. And although I did get restless during the talky bits, I have to say that all of the actions scenes were first rate. The fact that the combat was varied (some of it was a bit more kung-fu, some of it was more brawling) was nice but the thing I liked the most is that it was handled skillfully. There was none of the fast-cut/shaky-cam syndrome that affects many modern action scenes; the camera stayed still so you could see all the actors' movements and the cuts were paced logically. Slo-mo was also used to good effect, if a bit too often. Say what you will about Synder's sensibilities but all three of his movies have shown that, if nothing else, he's a great action director.

In terms of acting, I thought that all of the performances were at least "good" with some being "very good" or "excellent". Jackie Earl Hayley's Rorschach might have been using the Batman-voice but it felt far more appropriate for him, and I thought the actor really captured the combination of paranoid psychopath vigilante and wounded, rejected sociopath at the heart of the character. Patrick Wilson was good as Nite Owl, although I thought that he could have been a bit more nerdy/nervous. I'm not sure how much Billy Crudup's performance has to do with the finished product of Dr. Manhattan, but I'm willing to say he was on-the-money. Matthew Goode was a little less preening/self-obsessed than I'd imagined Veidt being but I liked his aristocratic calm at everything. I loved Jeffery Dean Morgan's Comedian, he had just the right mix of weariness and belligerence. The biggest problem, acting-wise, was Malin Akerman's Silk Spectre. Now, it's clear that she got cast for her looks and willingness to dress in a stupid costume while doing fight scenes, more than anything else, but, while I certainly didn't think her performance was bad, she felt flat and nervous, emotionally.

I thought that the gore got a bit gratuitous at points. The entrails dripping off the ceiling after Manhattan explodes a group of dudes, when Rorschach kills the pedophile with the butcher knife and when the mob goon gets his arms cut off being the main examples. The Nite Owl/Silk Spectre sex scene was also a bit much.

All that said, though, I liked the movie though I wish more of it might have resembled the opening montage set to "The Times They Are A-Changin'" (speaking of which, the movie had a very good, period-appropriate, soundtrack, with the exception of the exceedingly confusing My Chemical Romance cover of "Desolation Row" which closes the film), where Synder didn't have material to work with directly from the comic book so he spring-boarded with some ideas of his own. It's very cool and makes me wish that Synder would do something original rather than word-for-word comic adaptations (he also did the movie of 300 which had a similar approach to the move from page to screen) and horror remakes (the 2005 Dawn Of The Dead, which was okay but not as good as the original, probably because it lacked black-fu), he's certainly shown he's at least a shade better than most Hollywood hacks (even if his tagging as "visionary" on the Watchmen poster made me laugh) and I think he should be given an opportunity to do something of his own vision.

BEAT UP SOME THUGS, SAY NO TO DRUGS

Screw the Watchmen movie, this is what they should've made.

I BELIEVE IN A KINGDOM COME

- Good Lost episode this week. I've never particularly liked Sawyer but in this new season he's begun to grow on me and there was a good balance of self-contained story and over-arching information. I do wonder about the mechanics of the time travel still and here's a thought: What happens if/when Juliette meets herself as a kid?

- I haven't heard the new U2 album yet, I'm hesitant because "Get Your Boots On" sucks something fierce, but I've been revisiting their older stuff a bit and, as much as it tends towards melodrama and grandstanding, a lot of it is pretty brilliant. The Joshua Tree is one of my favourite mellow albums, it's melodically engaging enough to be memorable as a series of songs but it's consistent enough in tone to work as a long form mood piece. And I absolutely love how it uses traditional American music (gospel, country, blues) as a tool for shading and texture (the harmonica on "Trip Through Your Wires", the gospel underpinnings of "I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For", the slide guitars on "Running To Stand Still"). Everybody and their grandma basically has this album, so, dig it out some time.

- I'll be seeing Watchmen on Sunday with friends, the mixed reviews are not exactly heartening but I like the comic enough to see it as a matter of course. Also, the New Yorker review made my blood boil, which I'm sure was its intent, mostly due to the fact the reviewer seemed to object to what Watchmen is rather than its execution of its ideas.

Short post, but, eh.

DOOO DO DO DOOOOOO DOOOOOO DO DO DO

Last night one of the the greatest blessings of all was given to us in the form of 2 hours of 24. Here are my point form notes of every important event or piece of dialogue:



(Note: as you have probably noticed these notes don't make a lot of sense unless you saw the program, but I digress)



- Renne jumps onto a boat . . . then jumps off of it (I think this was just an excuse to get her wet).

- Why even introduce Dubacku's kid is you're gonnna kill him 20 minutes later?

- Can't Juma hire some people to do this terrorist operation for him?

- "WHERE IS THE TARGET?".

- "He was torturing Burnett . . . in the Whitehouse".

- The Whitehouse apparently only has video monitors in the saferoom.

- Very high body count this episode . . only a couple Bauers though.

- Speaking of that, Jack seems to be the only good guy who can aim for shit.

- I think everyone knows this too because the just let those two Secret Serivce dudes get locked out of the saferoom and be shot when Jack and the Prez get in.

- Bill has plot armour.

- Finally, the Chloe Vs. Janis techie catfight I was waiting for.

- Most of Juma's dudes had automatic weapons but one guy had the ultimate weapon: the tablet PC.

- "I will cut out her eyes one by one".

- God, Tony Todd has gotten fat since The Rock/Candyman.

- I get the sense that Tony isn't telling everything to Bill.

- "I'm driving off a cliff".

- Why did Juma have a picture of the Whitehouse that wasn't a blueprint or anything?

- Aaron went out like a punk.





Overall, this episode reminded me a lot of those ultra-cheesy 80's "US gets invaded by terrorists" action movies such as the pinnacle of cinema known as Invasion USA. In fact, you could just cast Chuck Norris as Jack Bauer and I'd be fooled. Also, Jon Voight's character would probably be a communist rather than an American businessman; that's progress!



Not exactly sure about my feelings towards next week. At the very least, the episode ended on a good, non-arbitrary, cliffhanger.