Search Keyword Within Blog

Monday, May 24, 2010

Lost: The Final Review





After multiple years, multiple storylines, multiple plot twists, and thousands upon thousands of mysteries thrown about, the cult hit Lost has come to a conclusion. This television show was easily one of the most frustrating and demanding moments in the history of television, because of the sheer amount of details and the sheer amount of material presented. What started as just a plane crash turned into an emotional sci-fi roller coaster full of twists, turns, births, deaths, revelations, redemptions, and themes about fate, destiny, love, and the good ol’ battle between science and faith. Overall, the show revolves around life against death, and evil vs. good. This wasn’t your typical drama; it was an extremely deep show that required extensive background knowledge about literature, religion, and symbolism. This ADD society was not prepared for such a show, and that was (partially) why the ratings were dropping on a yearly basis

Whatever the reason, Disney decided to cut down the show into a sixth season and none further. Whether the writers will admit this or not, the show required at least ten seasons before everything was to be explained and examined. The first two seasons created so many questions, it was virtually impossible to answer them without sacrificing the heart of the show: character development and character interaction. This is why (in my opinion) science doesn’t blend well with faith, leading to one of the big conflicts in the show. With science, in a cold, calculated manner, presents you with facts and statements about why things are the way that they are. The sky is blue because of reflected light, something about the sun, yadda yadda yadda. With faith however, not everything has to be explained, you leave it all up to a force or greater power to explain why we live, why we breathe, and why we are here. God created the skies, He created them blue. With faith, more heart and more emotion is poured into the answers (they usually generally explain that someone upstairs really loves you).

This is where the show splits into two: we have the scientific fanbase that wants to know why the island is the way that it is, and why it does the things that it does; and then we have those more into the characters, more into the decisions and life choices made by them. Those that want answers are not as obliged to spend an episode learning about Jack’s inability to recover from post-Island life. They want to know the 5 Ws of the island, even though if those were answered they would lead to more questions.

Were the writers written into a corner? In some ways yes, but for the most part they clearly knew what they were going to do with the show. Basically, they knew the beginning and end destinations—they just hadn’t figured out the journey, the way to get from Point A to Point B. If you look back to the early seasons, they match cleverly well with the later revelations (just look at the smoke monster for example). Lost is hands-down, the biggest and baddest example of using Macguffins up the ying yang to advance the story. Macguffins are plot devices that are never truly explained, but advance the story and motivate the characters within the story.

Hitchcock was the originator and master of this film element. The best Macguffin in film history for example is the briefcase in Pulp Fiction; it never quite explains the contents inside it, but with the dialogue and acting you can tell it was something special, and extremely vital. The island is basically a Macguffin, a quite colossal one. Explaining all the mannerisms of the island would require two seasons within itself. The writers instead wanted each individual viewer to interpret the reason why the island is such a peculiar work of nature. One would scream cop-out, but seeing that Lost is the most detailed show in decades, we can’t quite come to that conclusion. Not with all the literary and mythological references throughout the multiple seasons. The explanation of the island was simple: it was a device that keeps the Devil-like character from escaping into the world. Very simple explanation, and while it doesn’t explain the behaviors, it does advance the television show as a whole. And, it still matches the basic theme of good against evil.

And now we come to the final episode, which is probably why you are reading this. What did the bitter critic think of the series finale of the television show he invested years upon? The answer is simple: the ending was spectacular. We will never truly get all the answers, this is impossible. They dug a hole so deep there’s no way of getting out, and also reality gets in the way (actors not wanting to return, kids growing up). However, the writers patched up the hole so beautifully, we can (and in my opinion should) pretty much forgive them for almost all the loose ends, and I admit, there are plenty. But sometimes, its best just to leave the mysteries.

Part of the appeal of Lost was all the mysteries, all the curious circumstances and moments. Lost is about characters and us viewers being lost in a world they (we) can’t quite comprehend or explain. If you explain a mystery, it loses its aura, it basically becomes a question-and-answer statement. Lost’s aura of the unknown is what kept it from being your average character-driven-ensemble-cast show. We became just like Jack, Sayid, Sawyer, and the others. But the producers were hoping we would finish just like the characters did: not getting all the answers but learning the important lessons along the way. Lost taught us to love, taught us to forgive, to forget, to move on, and to never judge upon first glance. By the end they didn’t figure out the island, but they figured out that the key to true happiness is by sticking together, by forgiving each other, and by letting go and moving on. That’s exactly what they all did, and they all met the kingdom of “heaven” towards the end. And we the viewers can discuss all the loose ends for months on end.

Lost was not about the destination, it was never about the 5 Ws and the How. Otherwise, it would have been a lengthy mini-series. Surely, there would be more explanations and more loose ends disappearing, but we wouldn’t have the epic character-driven moments that Lost became well-known for. If Lost were an answer-driven miniseries, then we wouldn’t have the tiny touching character moments like Desmond calling Penny in The Constant, like Jin and Sun meeting their unfortunate end a few episodes ago, or Richard re-uniting (not long) with his wife who had died. We would never have seen Jin’s reaction when he finally sees pictures of his child, when Hurley says good-bye to Libby, or when Ben loses his daughter in front of his eyes. Last, but definitely not least, if the writers had gone the path of just showing the mysteries and explaining them, then the epic episode Walkabout (one of the best episodes of any show in history) would never have occurred.

Now, this is not to say I saw the ending coming. My personal theory for the sideways-timeline was that while the plane never crashed and the island supposedly went down, the events of 2004 would eventually lead to 2007. Made sense, right? My idea for the ending would be that everyone does escape the Island and moves on, except for Fake Locke and Jack, whom become the new Jacob and MIB. I also thought that MIB and Jacon = Cain and Abel. All were wrong, but coming up with theories and attempted answers was just some of the fun of Lost. Everyone had their awesome theories, and the ambiguous nature of Lost allowed for all these theories to thrive.

My only gripes: Sayid and Shannon (Eh, not that great a couple), No Michael (although technically he wasn’t that close to the core group), No Eko (although that’s the actor’s fault), and no final realization as to whether or not Charles Whittmore was good or evil. Besides that, I don’t think they could have ended the finale any better---but I was one more focused on the characters rather than the extensive little details and mysteries hounding us for years.

Bottom Line: Lost ended in an amazing manner, despite all the griping around the internet about the lack of answers. It didn’t matter how much they could answer in that final episode, we were not ever going to get the full picture, it just was not possible. This was a show that could have been ranked even higher among the greats given a little bit more time. No matter what kind of writer you are, there’s no way you can cram thousands of years of history involving a supernatural island into just six seasons. Impossible. Nonetheless, the resolution amongst all the characters that had seen and suffered so much, could not be any better. That final scene, those final moments, could bring tears to the coldest of hearts. If you had not followed the show, then you are missing out on some great writing, great acting, and all-around great television.

Lost, you will be missed, long after the finale.

The End.

Sunday, May 16, 2010

Castle in the Sky: 10/10



Tenkû no shiro Rapyuta (1986)
An epic animated adventure worth visiting over and over again, 16 May 2010

Animated films can become a lot of things (especially nowadays with updated technology and a newfound respect for the medium), including romantic, life changing, groundbreaking, political, or sometimes just flatout surreal in scale. No longer are animated films just cartoons for kids to watch and enjoy, that stereotype is long gone. However, epic is not a word you can use to describe animated films, because they just don't happen often. Animated movies with the ability to become compared to the likes of Lawrence of Arabia, Gone with the Wind, Ben-Hur, Seven Samurai and other epic films past and present are extremely rare to find. However if there is a man that can weave a blockbuster animated tale, it would be the Japanese answer to America's Walt Disney. Castle in the Sky is epic in scale, with a massive adventure full of lush scenery, incredible action, memorable characters, and a nice dosage of humor. If there is an epic cartoon, it would be this underrated masterpiece.

Castle in the Sky follows two kids that met under curious circumstances (Sheeta and Pazu) racing against pirates, the army, and mysterious agents in pursuit of a mythical castle located somewhere in the skies above the clouds. Sheeta is aided by a mysterious necklace given to her by her parents when she was younger. All the competition has their differing reasons on why they want to find the castle, ranging from gold to unleashing God-like powers. The film works mainly because the story is very unique, very original, and quite unpredictable. Written by Hayao Miyazaki, this film is the best evidence that his mind is among the most creative in film-making within the past century.

The world displayed here is among the most gorgeous in the history of animation. There are massive airships the size of cities, caves that can look like the bowels of outer space, entire worlds that just float high midair and just entire towns built on the mountainside, leading to some unique and detailed architecture. No computer-work here, as this movie proves that hand-drawn animation's personal touch can be as magical as the best visual effects coming from any computer. The variety in colors and images here trounces those of Miyazaki's more popular works, like Spirited Away and My Neighbor Totoro.

The epicness can be mainly traced to the consistent amount of peril and action throughout the two hours of pure movie magic. The opening sequence sets the tone for the rest of the film, while a humorous yet impressive train chase half an hour later provides some of the best thrills ever seen in an animated movie. Every so often humor breaks off the epic taint in the production, but it never dwells or outstays its welcome. Steampunk is a tough sell, since it's a historical and contextual contradiction. But in Castle in the Sky, Miyazaki gives the viewers time to adapt and witness the technological advancements and mannerisms of the characters in the film so you don't become too distracted by the unrealistic nature of it all.

Miyazaki is the current Walt Disney, because not only does he avoid sequels (Pixar is unfortunately dwelling in this path) but he does his best to deliver a different animated experience every time he releases something new. Like Walt Disney himself, he can seamlessly blend humor, heart, and suspense all in one. He has the pacing, patience, and abilities of any decent Hollywood director, but with film you can do so much more. You can create shots that real-life cameras could never accomplish; and with animation you can create visuals that not a single CGI machine could ever duplicate. This is perhaps the main reason why Miyazaki avoids too much computer animation and avoids filming real-life altogether. When mentioning great directors like Spielberg, Scorsese, Peter Jackson, and David Fincher, Miyazaki is more than worthy to be mentioned in the sentence.

Bottom Line: Castle in the Sky is a flawless work of art that spins audiences into a beautiful world full of steampunk goodness and lush scenery that's obviously influenced by the underrated landscape of Japan. Within the confides of this beautiful world (that travels by sea, land, and air) lies a wonderful story full of humor, heart, action, suspense, and an underlying message that's present in almost all Miyazaki movies. Pixar obviously has taken notes from the works on Japanese Walt Disney, as this movie has scenes and moments that can be compared to those of Finding Nemo, Toy Story, and even Up. If you enjoy excellent animated movies, you cannot miss this gem, as it's entertaining, thrilling, and mystical from the first second to the last.

Thursday, May 13, 2010

For Your Pointless Trivia Pleasure, the 25 Most Visited Theme Parks in the World

http://ustop20themeparks.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/magic_kingdom_castle.jpg


1) MAGIC KINGDOM at Walt Disney World
Lake Buena Vista, FL, USA
17,233,000

2) DISNEYLAND
Anaheim, CA, USA
15,900,000

3) TOKYO DISNEYLAND
Tokyo, Japan
13,646,000

4) DISNEYLAND PARK at Disneyland Paris
Marne-la-Vallee, France
12,740,000

5) TOKYO DISNEY SEA
Tokyo, Japan
12,004,000

6) EPCOT at Walt Disney World
Lake Buena Vista, FL, USA
10,990,000


7) DISNEY’S HOLLYWOOD STUDIOS at Walt Disney World
Lake Buena Vista, FL, USA
9,700,000



8) DISNEY’S ANIMAL KINGDOM at Walt Disney World
Lake Buena Vista, FL, USA
9,590,000

9) UNIVERSAL STUDIOS JAPAN
Osaka, Japan
8,000,000

10) EVERLAND
Gyeonggi-Do, South Korea
6,169,000

11) DISNEY’S CALIFORNIA ADVENTURE
Anaheim, CA, USA
6,050,000

12) SEAWORLD FLORIDA
Orlando, FL, USA
5,800,000

13) UNIVERSAL STUDIOS at Universal Orlando
Orlando, FL, USA
5,530,000

14) OCEAN PARK
Hong Kong
4,800,000

15) NAGASHIMA SPA LAND
Kuwana, Japan
4,700,000

16) ISLANDS OF ADVENTURE at Universal Orlando
Orlando, FL, USA
4,627,000

17) HONG KONG DISNEYLAND
Hong Kong
4,600,000


18) YOKOHAMA HAKKEIJIMA SPA PARADISE
Yokohama, Japan
4,500,000


19) UNIVERSAL STUDIOS HOLLYWOOD
Universal City, CA, USA
4,308,000

20) LOTTE WORLD
Seoul, South Korea
4,261,000

21) EUROPA PARK
Rust, Germany
4,250,000

22) SEAWORLD CALIFORNIA
San Diego, CA, USA
4,200,000

23) BUSCH GARDENS TAMPA BAY
Tampa Bay, FL, USA
4,100,000

24) DE EFTELING
Kaatsheuvel, Netherlands
4,000,000

25) TIVOLI GARDENS
Copenhagen, Denmark
3,870,000

A few things to note:
1) Magic Kingdom is once again the #1 theme park in the world; imagine the attendance once the darn park actually increases in size
2) Sea World Orlando is now the #1 theme park in America not named Disney.
3) Universal (both Orlando parks) are really reeling a bit, with Universal dropping over 10% in the last year.
4) California Adventure is creeping into the top 10; years after Disney realized what a disaster it was---almost giving 9 of the Top 10 slots to Disney.
5) 10 of the Top 25 theme parks around the world have the Disney name…isn’t that something?
6) Where is Cedar Point?
7) One would wonder how much better the attendance of Hollywood Studios and Animal Kingdom would be if they have monorail tracks included
8) The Netherlands have a theme park creeping into the top 25 with a massive attendance boost of 25%. Funny fact: that park is actually older than Disneyland
9) Despite the reputation of being forever-second place, Universal has 4 parks in the Top 25; including Japan and California.
10) Japan owns 5 of the top 25 theme parks, with America containing 12.
11) Next year, I see the rankings in the top 10, being more or less the same, with California Adventure replacing Everland. Then I predict Islands of Adventure hitting the Top 15 thanks to Harry Potter


Pointless trivia for the week. Enjoy!


All this attendance information came from TEA.
http://www.themeit.com/

Friday, May 7, 2010

Iron Man 2: 6/10

http://www.rowthree.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/iron-man-2-war-machine.jpg

The first Iron Man was different from your average comic book movie because it lacked the unnecessary drama, instead replacing it with many more laughs, a much more likable main character, and plenty of comic book flair usually missing from the other comic movies. With the success of Iron Man, Marvel Studios decided to go forth with their long-waited and epic idea to bring a few of their best heroes together into one massive flick that will make anybody that is a fan of comic books squeal with glee and delight. The Avengers is sure to become the biggest addition of comic book filmmaking since the original Spider-Man broke barriers and records many years ago. The Avengers will be incredible.

Which leads to the biggest issue of Iron Man 2: the film is just a tad notch above set-up flick. Just like what Dead Man’s Chest in the Pirates franchise did, Iron Man 2 became a 2-hour movie with a slew of conflicts in which were not all resolved because there is another installment coming. Suffering from the Spider-Man 3 effect, Iron Man 2 is chock full of storylines interweaving together, and not all of them are interesting, and not all of them even reach a resolution. We see more Tony Stark than Iron Man. The cameos steal the spotlight. Some of the villains were whether annoying or as much of a threat as a newborn puppy. Many pieces were built around the set, but not all of them fit.

Tony Stark 2—er, I mean, Iron Man 2 is about our hero (Robert Downey Jr.) taking on the government, rivals, and even his own health—which is depleting rapidly because of hit artificial “heart.” With his health slowly dying away, he starts drinking, acting even more eccentric, and even stepped down from his CEO duties. In the meantime, the Iron Man technology is being imitated around the world, with an intelligent Russian (Mickey Rourke) trying to kill Stark with his own version of a powersuit. Justin Theroux provides the screenplay, and stuffs it up with cameos, references to the future, problems, villains, and a few plotlines from old-school Iron Man comic book issues. A lot goes on.

Let’s at least marvel at the powerhouse cast. Robert Downey Jr. does an excellent job as Tony Stark/Iron Man yet again, providing a great blend of narcissism with subtle fear of death. Gwyneth Paltrow doesn’t get much screentime yet again but does a great job with the material she has. Other performances throughout the movie were very good, including Garry Shandling, Mickey Rourke, Samuel L. Jackson, Sam Rockwell, Don Cheadle, and to an extent Scarlett Johansson (whose fighting skills nearly stole the entire show). Great performances, but nearly all the supporting actors I mentioned didn’t have much time to truly craft a whimsical, memorable performance to the likes of Heath Ledger as the Joker, Rosemary Harris as Aunt May, or William Dafoe as Green Goblin.

The acting isn’t the only thing chock full of small samples and no main course; there was little action, little tension, little chemistry between the two leads, and little suspense. What progresses the movie and prevented it from being a total disaster was Robert Downey Jr. entertaining the masses with his portrayal of Stark. Granted this is a movie about Tony Stark, but the film is called Iron Man, and one would hope for more of him in the suit. As a matter of fact, Iron Man engages in action in only three scenes, with one of them being extremely short. Just like in the original, the final epic battle was extremely short, extremely underwhelming, and very anti-climactic. Whiplash could have been an intimidating force to the likes of the Joker (in both versions, shut up), Doc Ock in Spider-Man 2, and Syndrome in The Incredibles (not a Marvel villain but a comic book-like villain nonetheless).

Like a cruelly beautiful woman, the film is a big tease. There are a lot of characters, but they aren’t in the film enough. The special effects were very good, but were not used a lot for the action scenes. Plenty of hints and references towards other Marvel comic books, but none of them lasted more than a minute (even though the last one was indeed------wow). Another problem is that the freshness and originality of Iron Man disappeared, which made this a tougher follow-up than one would assume. Is the film disappointing? Yea, loosely. Is it entertaining? Most definitely, but the potential carried is what makes this a somewhat-frustrating movie. It made most of us beg like an unsatisfied bum for 2011 and 2012 to arrive so we can see more (and longer) comic book crossovers.

Bottom Line: Iron Man 2 is most definitely entertaining and loads of fun—sometimes. Other times, we are watching a storyline we don’t really care about, watching appearances we know should last longer, or watching potential get ruined because it’s being carried over to the next installment of the Marvel moviemaking franchise. While this is more script issues than directing issues (Jon Favreau did a decent job, but his character wasn’t necessary at all), someone during the production should have stood up and shouted “What’s with all the loose Walt Disney references??”


Wait, wait, wait, I meant “Isn’t this a repeat of what happened to Spider-Man 3??” Iron Man 2 = Spider-Man 3, except more fun, much less embarrassing, and a better-looking future. The film isn't a boring disaster, but you are constantly left with a desire for more--long before the movie is even over. Now why can’t this Avengers movie come faster?