Saturday, February 26, 2011

The 2011 Lethargic Oscar Picks Extravaganza!!!!

In last year's Oscar blog I said the nominations were the worst in history.  This year's group is better, but not by much.  I truly hated  most of them last year while this year there are only a couple I didn't like.  The problem is that I didn't love any of them.  Everything is fairly average or good, but not great.  So this year's blog should be quite a bit shorter than previous years because, honestly, there's not a lot to say.  If you don't love something and you don't hate something it's hard to come up with something to say.  "Meh" is a hard emotion to convey.

And it sucks having to write all this negative stuff.  I'm a movie lover, I watch every movie with the hope that it will be awesome.  Even if it's something I didn't want to see but got roped into seeing it anyway I cross fingers for a pleasant surprise.  For years I have argued against people who claimed Hollywood does nothing but put out popcorn blockbuster crap.  I've always been of the mind that Hollywood puts out just as much greatness as it does garbage.  But these last two years have been rough and I'm finding it harder and harder to argue against the haters.  I look at what is coming in 2011 and all I see is a bunch of sequels to bad movies, a slew of inferior remakes of great movies, a buttload of movies with 3D in the title and a kajillion mediocre non-Pixar animated movies.  I'm having trouble finding hope that next year's Oscars will be an improvement.

Here, I'll go ahead and tell you the 10 nominees for best picture next year...

Piranha 3DD
A Very Harold & Kumar Christmas
Footloose
Spy Kids 4
Big Mommas: Like Father, Like Son
Mars Needs Moms!
Arthur
Johnny English Reborn
Paranormal Activity 3
The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn

I just made myself depressed.  Let's get this over with.  As always I rank every nominee from 5-1 with #1 being my pick.  I am also going to give my prediction as well as my personal picks.  With the categories nobody cares about I won’t talk about each nominee, but will in the important categories.  And I'm in a real rush trying to get this finished.  If you see any mistakes, just ignore them.

BEST SOUND MIXING

1 - Inception

5 (tie) - Salt  
5 (tie) - The Social Network  
5 (tie) - True Grit  
5 (tie) - The King's Speech

Come on.  Let's be serious here.  If Inception doesn't win every single technical awards then just stop having Oscars.  Best movie?  Probably not.  Most technically impressive?  23459023% yes!

Prediction:  Inception (or I riot)

BEST SOUND EDITING

1 - Inception
  
2 - Toy Story 3  
3 - TRON: Legacy
4 - True Grit  
5 - Unstoppable

How does Unstoppable get any nomination?  It is quite possibly the dumbest movie in history.  And I usually love everything Tony Scott does but, uggh.  I usually lean toward the animated films in this category but like I 
said before....INCEPTION!

Prediction:  Inception

BEST VISUAL EFFECTS

1 - Inception

2 - Hereafter
3 - Alice in Wonderland
4 - Harry Potter
5 - Iron Man 2

How much do I hate Iron Man 2?  I put it below Harry Potter and I've never even seen a Harry Potter movie.  I wish Iron Man 2 was nominated more so I could bash it more.  One of the biggest duds in history. Alice in Wonderland just looks silly and stupid, Hereafter had some cool moments but Inception FOLDED A FRIGGIN CITY.

Prediction:  Inception

BEST MAKEUP

1 - Barney's Version    

2 - The Way Back  
3 - The Wolfman

I wasn't able to see either Barney or The Way Back.  I was able to see The Wolfman.  If we're talking Lon Chaney Wolfman I'd give it the award in a second.  If we're talking about that steaming pile of monkey crap they put out last year, well, go screw.  At least Barney's Version has good word of mouth.

Prediction:  The Wolfman  (Just to annoy me)

BEST ORIGINAL SONG
"Coming Home" - Country Strong  
"I See the Light" - Tangled  
"If I Rise" - 127 Hours
"We Belong Together" - Toy Story 3

Do I have to pick one of these?  I assumed I would pick Coming Home because I figured it'd be a standard country pop song but it's not.  It's terrible.  I See the Light is the exact same song that has been in every Disney movie in history.  If I Rise sounds like some awful noise you hear during a massage.  We Belong Together?  How many times is Randy Newman going to win an award for that one songs he knows?  Pathetic.  I'm flipping a coin.  Ok, I'm picking If I Rise!


Prediction:  Might as well stick with the coin… If I Rise

BEST ORIGINAL SCORE
1 - Inception  
2 - The Social Network
3 - How to Train Your Dragon
4 - The King's Speech  
5 - 127 Hours  

The way I always decide who I pick for best score is by sitting here, staring at the screen and trying to remember the main theme from the movies.  A good score should stick in your head.  The only two that did that here is Inception and Social Network.  The difference is that the Inception score is actual music while The Social Network's score was nothing but a bunch of typical beep, bop, boop garbage that Trent Reznor always does.  Way to really branch out there Trent.  Boo.

Prediction:  I’m torn between King’s Speech and Social Network.  I think Speech will get it but Hollywood probably wants to make themselves feel “hip” by putting Trent Reznor on stage.  I guess I’ll stick with my gut and say King’s Speech.

BEST FILM EDITING
1 - 127 Hours
2 - Black Swan  
3 - The Fighter  
4 - The King's Speech
5 - The Social Network  

Most of these didn't really stand out to me in either a bad or good way.  They were all pretty average and what you expect.  I give a bit of a nod to 127 Hours due to the fact that it's an entire movie about a guy stuck between a rock and a wall.  Nothing happens.  It took a lot of magic to keep this movie interesting and entertaining and a lot of that magic came from the editing. 


Prediction:  The Social Network

BEST COSTUME DESIGN
1 - The King's Speech  
2 - The Tempest  
3 - Alice in Wonderland  
4 - True Grit
5 - I Am Love  

I watched I Am Love after the nominations came out so I knew to pay attention to the costumes and I still can't come up with a single reason why this stupid foreign movie nobody has ever heard of is in this category.  It looks like just normal everyday clothes you see on the street for the most part.  Oh, look, it's a guy in pants and a shirt, that deserves an award.

True Grit looks like they did nothing but go to one of them places where you get your picture taken dressed up like a cowboy and raided their closet.  Alice in Wonderland?  Give me a break. The Tempest?  I have no idea what this movie even is but I'm sure it can't be any worse than the other three.  I give it to King's Speech by process of elimination.


Prediction:  The King’s Speech

BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY
1 - Inception  
2 - Black Swan  
3 - The King's Speech  
4 - The Social Network  
5 - True Grit

I wouldn't be sad to see either Inception or Black Swan win this and one of them should undoubtedly do so.  Aronofsky's movies are always shot beautifully but every frame of Inception not only looks good, but also important.  Wally Pfister is the best cinematographer in the world today.  He should win this every single time he's nominated.


Prediction:  True Grit (Roger Deakins has been nominated 9 times.  They probably give it to him on the 10th try.)

BEST ART DIRECTION
1 - Inception  
2 - The King's Speech
3 - Harry Potter
4 - Alice in Wonderland  
5 - True Grit

FOLDED A CITY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Prediction:  The King’s Speech.  Or maybe they go crazy and give it to Alice.

BEST DOCUMENTARY
1 - Restrepo  
2 - Gasland  
3 - Inside Job  
4 - Waste Land
5 - Exit Through the Gift Shop

This category is the most puzzling for me.  Once again it's a bunch of movies that are OK, nothing great, nothing bad, just a bunch of movies that are there.  The puzzler is that I've gotten to the point where I watch documentaries way  more than I watch traditional movies and I saw a bunch of great documentaries in the past year.  I just don't understand how out of all the fantastic documentaries that came out that the Academy picked this five as the best.  It makes no sense.  Where is Waiting for Superman, The Tillman Story, Cropsey, Best Worst Movie, A Piece of Work, Scrappers, Collapse, Tabloid, Winebago Man, American, Who is Harry Nilsson, and on and on and on?

The biggest head scratcher for me is Exit Through the Gift Shop.  A very entertaining movie for the most part and a great documentary for an hour or so, but then it goes out of left field and turns into a big hoax.  I don't know how something this fake gets nominated for best documentary.  If this can get nominated then Blair Witch and Cloverfield should've been nominated here too.  And I was really enthralled with the first part of the movie, the actual documentary part, where we got to see all the street artists do their work.  That was interesting.  But the last act not only came off completely fake but also ruined the movie because it was just flat our boring.

I pick Restrepo for the win.  Not because I loved it, because I didn't, it was kind of boring.  But much like The Cove last year, this is a movie that people should just see to have their eyes opened.  It follows a group of soldiers in the most dangerous part of Afghanistan, it doesn't really tell a "story" but it just shows what hell we're allowing these people to be put through.  Anybody who still thinks this war is a good idea should watch this and see just what they're doing to our own people for no real reason.


Prediction:  Inside Job seems to be in the lead but I wouldn’t be shocked if they pick Gift Shop just to see what kind of wackiness Banksy tries to pull.

BEST FOREIGN LANGUAGE FILM
1 - Dogtooth
2 - Biutiful
3 - In a Better World  
4 - Incendies  
5 - Outside the Law

This won’t win, without a doubt, but I pick Dogtooth anyway and I would piss my pants if it actually won.  Dogtooth is, by far, the most insane movie ever nominated for an Oscar.  I cannot understand how it ended up here.  It is just non-stop crazy for 90 minutes.  It's not art, it's just crazy.  There is zero redeemable quality in this movie except that it will blow your mind at how over the top crazy it is.  If it wins, people will search it out and watch it (It's on Netflix Instant...WATCH IT!) and  I want to imagine what the reaction will be when all these people who have no clue about it say, oh, here's that movie that won the Oscar, let's watch it, honey!  People will lose their minds watching this. 



I'm trying really hard to not say too much about Dogtooth because I want people to watch it with their jaw on the floor the same way I did but the movie is about a man who keeps his near adult aged children locked away from the outside world for no apparent reason.  They have a wall around the house and the kids aren't allowed to go outside it because he convinces them that cats are out there and the cats will kill them.  To protect themselves from the cats he teaches them to get down on their hands and knees and bark like dogs.  He convinces them that they have a brother who lives on the other side of the wall and the kids spend a lot time trying to talk to this brother and throwing him food over the wall.  Until he gets "killed" by the cats. He tells the kids that nobody is allowed to visit the outside world until one of their canine teeth (Dogtooth) falls out.  The only outsider they ever get to see is this girl who he pays to come to the house and have sex with his son.  Until he ends up bashing her head in with a VCR, of course.

And this is the sanest part of the movie. You can sort of understand this part.  Ok, he wants his family locked away from the world so he makes up some crazy stories to convince them to stay, right?  But then he just does so much other stuff that shows what a sadistic maniac he is.  The children are taught the wrong meanings of words.  They have to listen to a tape recording everyday where the father gives them definitions of words but teaches them things like "sea" means a chair or "excursion" means flooring material.  This trick brings great hilarity when one of the girls asks somebody to lick her keyboard.  He also convinces the children that airplanes are nothing but toys.  So he throws little airplane toys in the yard and whenever the kids see a real one fly over he goes "I think that one fell in the garden!" and then all the kids run around the garden until they find the little airplane that fell out of the sky.

You think I've given a lot of spoilers here?  There's more.  So much more.  It's crazy.  And I have no idea what it is.  The trailer calls it a satire, but of what??  Is this a comedy?  A horror movie?  I don't know.  All I know is I watched all these Oscar movies and I would forget which movie I saw by the next day, I will never forget this one.


Watch the trailer here if you don't believe me: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFtDzK64-pk

Prediction:  Biutiful or In A Better World…eh, Biutiful (Boo)

BEST ANIMATED FEATURE
1 - Toy Story 3

2 - The Illusionist  
3 - How to Train Your Dragon  

Is there any doubt?


Prediction:  Toy Story 3 (Is there any doubt?)

BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY
1 - 127 Hours  
2 - Toy Story 3  
3 - Winter's Bone
4 - The Social Network  
5 - True Grit  

I...I just...I just don't know.  Another category that is just....meh.  Outside of True Grit they were all decent, but none were great.  I enjoyed 127 Hours the most.  I guess.  Maybe?  I think.


Prediction:  The Social Network

BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY
1 - The King's Speech
2 - Inception  
3 - The Kids Are All Right
4 - Another Year  
5 - The Fighter  

Same thing.  All good.  None great.  I give it to King's Speech because there is no way that boring story should've become such an interesting and watchable movie.


Prediction:  The King's Speech

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS

5 - Hailee Steinfeld - True Grit

People have been raving about this girl ever since True Grit came out.  Sorry, but I couldn't stand her.  I have nothing against the actress, but the role was 100% unbelievable and 100% unbearably annoying.  Is it fair to hold the role against the actress?  No.  But I don't care, these are my picks.  I hated the character and I hated the movie.  F True Grit.  F Hailee Steinfeld.  F The Coen Brothers.

4 - Jacki Weaver - Animal Kingdom

A true head scratcher.  Don't know what Animal Kingdom is?  Don't worry, you're not alone.  I'd imagine most people never heard of this until the nominations came out.  And after seeing it I really don't understand it.  She wasn't bad, she did just fine, I have no complaints about the performance.  I just don't see how it's possible that this is one of the five best performances of the last year.  I don't know why they sought out this tiny little movie from Australia to nominate this person nobody has ever heard of for playing a character that was pretty silly and nearly completely unimportant to the plot of the movie.  I just don't get it.  I liked the movie, but if I had watched it beforehand there would be no way I would’ve ever thought anything about it would deserve an Oscar and this woman in particular would've been last on the list.  I would trade this nomination for Mila Kunis in Black Swan in a second.

3 - Melissa Leo - The Fighter
2 - Amy Adams - The Fighter

I know I'm going to come off as a broken record but once again these two fall into the "good but not great" category.  I can't say anything bad about either one.  They're both great actresses but I don't think these roles are really all that Oscar worthy.  These seem more like nominations based on previous performances than on the one they're actually nominated for and they've both reached the point where almost anything  they do is considered award worthy automatically.  And I'm a fan of Amy Adams.  I'd love to say I want her to win and I wouldn't be mad if she did but I just can't say that.  And I only put her over Leo because she's the only actress on the list who I'd like to take out behind the middle school and get pregnant.

1 - Helena Bonham Carter - The King's Speech

There have been years where I would've put Carter last because there would be so many other great performances.  This year?  Not so much. But she did do a great job in the movie.  And you know how I know she did a great job?  Because I can't stand Helena Bonham Carter.  Usually when I see her name in a movie's cast it's like Dracula seeing a cross.  Yet she completely won me over in this movie and came off extremely likeable.  I don't know if that will ever happen again so she better take this award now.


Prediction: Melissa Leo

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR

5 - Jeremy Renner - The Town

In last year's Oscar blog, when Renner was nominated for The Hurt Locker I said "every time I see this guy's face I want to punch him."  I still stand by that.  I wasn't as annoyed at him in this movie but yet he's still playing the cliché KRAZZZEEEEEEE!!!! guy that he played in that movie.  And as far as I can tell he's played that exact same character in every movie I've ever seen him in.  He's like some relic from the 1980s, yet not one of the good ones.  I  had enough with the KRAZZEEEEE!!!! guy who plays by his own rules in Cobra. 

4 - Geoffrey Rush - The King's Speech

On the other hand, I love Geoffrey Rush.  He's good in everything he's in.  I don't knock him getting this nomination but there's no way he deserves to actually win it.  He's a fantastic actor, but his role wasn't the role of the movie, know what I'm sayin'?

3 - John Hawkes - Winter's Bone  

Hawkes is a modern day JT Walsh.  He's the guy who has been in everything but nobody knows who the hell he is.  Lost, Deadwood, Eastbound and Down, 24, X-Files, The Perfect Storm, From Dusk till Dawn, The Crow, The Adventures of Brisco County Jr. and Night of the Scarecrow are just some of his 107 credits.  I'm pretty sure he's been in at least 32% of everything that has kicked ass in the past 20 years.  But, as I'll get to later, I found myself very underwhelmed by Winter's Bone.  There just wasn't enough for Hawkes to work with here outside of maybe 1 scene.  I wouldn't mind seeing him win, but I'm not sure it should be for this.

2 - Mark Ruffalo - The Kids Are All Right

Ruffalo is another of my favorite actors and in most years I would pick him for this hands down.  I thought he did terrific in this movie.  He was given an incredibly hard job.  He had to play a guy who did some pretty dumb things, yet remain completely likable to the viewer.  When you're a guy sleeping with somebody's wife and actively trying to break up a marriage, it's hard to be the sympathetic character, yet Ruffalo pulls it off here.  I was cheering more for his character to have a happy ending than I was for the couple.  I'd love to see him win but it's not going to happen because this is one of the few categories that is a 100% lock.

1 - Christian Bale - The Fighter

Christian Bale is the greatest actor working today and his performance in The Fighter is more proof of that.  Nobody out there becomes a character the way Bale does.  We've never seen Christian Bale on film.  While other actors continue making millions doing nothing but playing different versions of themselves, Bale is the one guy who always plays the character.  He transforms himself physically and mentally for every role.  Watching him for the last 10 years going from American Psycho to The Machinist to Batman to Harsh Times to The Fighter, with many more in-between, has been like watching DeNiro in the 70s and 80s going from Taxi Driver to The Deer Hunter to Raging Bull to The King of Comedy.  Like watching Pacino before he decided to just be the short guy yelling in every movie.  The fact that Bale has never won an Oscar is crazy.  The fact that he hasn't even been nominated before is embarrassing.

But I totally see why this is the movie that finally got the attention he longed deserved.  Once again he makes a complete physical and mental transformation to not play Dickie Eklund, but to become him.  When you see Dickie and you see Bale's performance there is zero difference.  He looks, talks and moves exactly like him.  Bale's energy is gone and Dickie's energy has replaced it.  It's one of his best performances ever yet it's more glaring in this movie because the "star" of the movie is Mark Wahlberg.  Wahlberg has had a good acting career.  A few great movies and a few clunkers.  He's had some Oscar level performances of his own, but for the most part he's fallen into the category I mentioned above, the actor who does nothing but play himself in every role.  Mark Wahlberg made no effort whatsoever to play Mickey Ward.  Zero.  It was simply Mark Wahlberg as a boxer.  It's funny because he's playing a boxer famous for his heart, but in playing the role Wahlberg showed no heart.  He just cashed a check.  No different than the Max Payne check.  He has the tools to be great, except for the drive, dedication and heart that Bale shows with every role.


Prediction: Christian Bale (duh)

BEST ACTRESS


5 - Annette Bening - The Kids Are All Right  

All I can think of when it comes to this nomination is....really?  Don't get it at all.  Annette Bening, best actress?  It really makes no sense.  She really wasn't even the lead in the movie.  Julianne Moore was in the movie way more and she was way more important to the movie than Bening was.  All Bening did was play a mad old lesbo.  She had no story, she had no real scenes of importance, she had no development.  Julianne Moore was the one who carried this movie.  Her character was the entire driving force behind the plot.  She's the only one that did anything.  Bening just stood around and complained. I would get this way more if it was supporting actress, but lead?  No way, no how.

4 - Jennifer Lawrence - Winter's Bone  

Really don't know what to say about this one.  Broken record again.  She was good...but Oscar worthy?  Nah.

3 - Natalie Portman - Black Swan

I don't get all the hoopla over this one either.  Was she good?  Yes.  Was it some amazing discovery or the best performance of her career?  No, not really.  She was just the same old reliable Natalie Portman she's always been since The Professional.  I'm not against her winning it, but it certainly wouldn't be my first choice.

2 - Nicole Kidman - Rabbit Hole  
1 - Michelle Williams - Blue Valentine

It used to be a rule that anytime you played a Nazi or a retard you'd get an Oscar.  Apparently we can now add unhappy housewife to that rule.  Both of these women played one this year so I grouped them together.  I also grouped them together because I've found it hard to choose between them.  They both did good work and both played the same type of character.  I was originally going to give it to Kidman on the basis that I went into the movie thinking there was no way I could spend 2 hours staring at her horribly plastic surgery disfigured face and actually buy her playing a "normal" housewife at this point.  Seriously, why did she do that to her face?  It's worse than Meg Ryan.  She's got to hold the record for quickest to go from hot to not. I did research.  In 2001 she was normal.  In 2002 she started looking weird.  In 2003 she looked like The Phantom of the Opera.  But, anyway, I thought there was no way this Botox monster would be believable but by the end of the movie I completely believed it.  She was great. And her face almost looked normal again.

But I find myself leaning toward Williams on the basis that she seemed to have way more to do with her role.  Kidman "simply" played the unhappy housewife.  Williams had to play both the young in love version of the character and the old unhappy housewife version.  I believe she showed just a tad bit more in this movie than Kidman did in hers.  And quite frankly I just like Williams and she's somebody who is very easy to cheer for.  She's been around for what feels like decades and ever since she got out of that Dawson's Creek crap she has put together a very interesting, and completely unheralded, body of work.  She could've done what all the other pretty young girls do and just go for the romcom ATM.  Instead of acting like all these young vapid idiots that infest Hollywood, she went off the beaten path.  She didn't go out looking paychecks, she went out looking for good and/or interesting roles.  It would be nice to finally see her get her due.


Prediction: Natalie Portman

BEST ACTOR

5 - Jesse Eisenberg - The Social Network  

Another anti-Christian Bale performance.  Eisenberg makes no attempt at all to portray Mark Zuckerberg.  He just plays a more annoying and more angry version of Jesse Eisenberg.  And I didn't think Jesse Eisenberg could get any more annoying.  I admit that Eisenberg had a few good moments in this movie, but if you're playing a real person, make a little bit of effort.

4 - Jeff Bridges - True Grit

Jeff Bridges got his due last year.  He's not going to get another one for this movie where he did nothing but a bad imitation of Karl from Slingblade.

3 - Javier Bardem - Biutiful  

Hell if I know.  Seriously, how can you tell great acting when you the actor isn't speaking English?  He's probably really good but if I'm reading the movie his performance is kinda going to get obscured.

2 - Colin Firth - The King's Speech  

Firth did a good job but I can't help but feel it has been a tad over-rated.  Originally I was actually expecting to put him lower.  But then I listened to the real recordings of the actual King he's playing and he sounds exactly like the dude.  And as I let the movie sink in and digest over a few days, the more and more I liked both him and the movie.

1 - James Franco - 127 Hours

If the lead in this movie fails.  The movie fails.  The lead didn't fail.  The movie didn't fail.  None of these other movies relied on it's star more than this movie did.  This entire movie rested on James Franco's shoulders.  I went back and forth between Franco and Firth for days.  But I just feel that Franco was much more important to his movie's success than Firth was to his.  And I like Pineapple Express.  So there.

Prediction: Colin Firth

BEST DIRECTOR

5 - Joel and Ethan Coen - True Grit

The only award these morons deserve is award for the brothers I'd most like see die  in a Chinese mine explosion. I am so sick of watching these two idiots get praised for one over-rated piece of crap letdown after another.  And the gall to try to pretend like they didn't know True Grit was already a movie?  To claim this isn't a remake?  Kiss my hairy ass.

4 - David Fincher - The Social Network  

David Fincher deserves an Oscar.  No question about it.  Much like Bale it is mind boggling that he doesn't have a room full of them.  Give it to him for Zodiac, for Fight Club, for Seven but for this??  Not winning for those but winning for this boring tripe would be a joke.

3 - David O. Russell - The Fighter

Eh.  I mean.  Uh.  Yeah.  Nothing bad to say but....meh.

2 - Tom Hooper - The King's Speech

He's probably going to win anyway so what does it matter if I don't pick him?

1 - Darren Aronofsky - Black Swan  

Nobody loves Aronofsky's work more than I do.  But I just can't bring myself to understand all the hoopla over this Black Swan movie.  Much like Fincher I'd find it hilarious, yet sad, that he'd win for this and not his other work.  But at the end of the day he's one of my favorite director's ever so I kinda have to be for him.  


It's just really, really sad that Christopher Nolan isn't in this category yet again.  He did the most incredible technically impressive directing job of the year by far and he worked on Inception for nearly 10 years.  Nobody put in the same amount of work that Nolan did.  Nobody.  To get passed over again while Russell and the Coens make it in makes me sick.

Prediction:  David Fincher

BEST PICTURE

10 - True Grit


I don't know if you figured this out or not but I really hated True Grit.  The sad thing is there was no movie that came out this year that I wanted to like more.  I had very high hopes.  Watching the movie was like ok, ok, ummmm....something's bound to happen soon....it's kinda boring so far....but, I know it's gonna be good in the end.....pretty soon things are gonna pick up and.....wait....it's over.  Even after watching I didn't know if I liked it or not but after a few days of thinking about it, I grew to despise it.

The movie had everything going for it, a great cast ,a great story, visuals were beautiful....but the pieces just never clicked together.  It's like they built the frame for a beautiful house but never put in the walls.  The characters were all nothing but empty shells filled with clichés.  Rooster Cogburn is supposed to be this charming rogue jackass who hates this little girl and is only helping her for the money.  He's supposed to slowly develop feelings for her through their ordeal and then in the end he turns out to have a heart of gold.  When he saves the girl's life at the end of the movie it should be a kick ass great cinematic moment.  Yet the Coens completely fumble this entire aspect of the movie.  They make the mistake of showing Rooster's heart of gold from the very start thus completely ruining the moment where he goes from charming rogue to life saving hero.  He obviously likes the girl from the very first time they meet, they even have him save her from a spanking early on.  They spend the whole movie acting like best friends up until the scene before the final act where they throw in this idiotic moment where he suddenly gets mad for no reason and tries to make her leave.  By that time, trying to put this wedge in-between the two characters is way too little, way too late and completely unbelievable.  No matter how many times I've seen Star Wars, when Han Solo shows up to help Luke blow up the Death Star it is always an exciting moment.  When this guy turns, it's like yeah, duh, so what?

The other problem with the movie is the complete and utter lack of a villain.  We spend most of the movie just watching people ride horses through the woods.  There’s no tension or sense of danger for these characters whatsoever.  The villains don't even show up until the last 10 minutes of the movie.  Then they have this huge cowboy shootout.  You got Rooster facing off against a whole posse of black hats all by himself with the music swelling to let you know that this is supposed to be important.  But it's not.  Why am I supposed to care about Rooster killing these guys when I haven't seen them do one bad deed?  The few minutes the main villain, Lucky Ned, is on screen he seems to be a pretty reasonable, nice fella.  He protects the girl and refuses to let the other members of his gang hurt her.  Why am I supposed to get behind the so called "hero" blatantly murdering these guys? We're never shown a single shred of proof that this guy has done anything all that wrong.  We're just told these are the bad guys so you shouldn’t like them.  At least in wrestling when somebody turns bad they hit somebody with a chair or something. 

9 - The Social Network

This movie grated on my nerves.  The story just isn't all that interesting.  Who gives a rat's ass about this?  A whole movie about some douchebags making a website?  This movie is nothing but rich white kids typing on keyboards, talking way too fast and arguing about money.  WHO CARES??

8 - Winter's Bone

Take almost everything I said about True Grit and apply it to Winter's Bone.  It's pretty much the exact same movie.  A young, tough talking, wise beyond her years teenage girl enlists the help of charming rogue jack ass Uncle to hunt down the murderer of her father.  It's the exact same plot.  The problem with Winter's Bone is that it never led anywhere.  At least True Grit had the big shoot out at the end that made no sense.  Winter's Bone kept building and building to what you just knew was going to be a crazy climax and then....oh, it's over. 

I did not hate this movie.  I truly didn't.  It's a better version of True Grit than True Grit is.  But it's underwhelming and I just wish something had happened.

7 - The Fighter

This movie is only worth seeing for Christian Bale.  Take him out and it's the exact same sports movie we've all seen a million times.  It's just another inferior Rocky.

6 - Black Swan

I like Black Swan.  I do.  I just don't understand why it's getting any of the praise it's getting.  All it is is a standard horror movie.  To be specific, it's a Japanese horror movie.  I've seen countless Japanese horror movies and that's exactly what I felt like I was watching here.  Even visually, it looked just like Japanese horror movies.  It has that same weird mind bending type plot of a Japanese horror movie.  Natalie Portman and Mila Kunis even look Japanese if you squint.  I'm watching it and I'm thinking, if this deserves an Oscar then so does Ju-On.  And the ending is so painfully obvious from about 10-15 minutes in that by time it happened I didn't care as I grew tired of waiting for the big “shocker” to be revealed.

5 - The Kids Are All Right

I enjoyed watching this one.  It was a fun little movie.  But I don't find it to be a good movie because the movie is good.  It's one of those movies that's kinda so-so but is made fun to watch because of the people in it.  Mark Ruffalo and Julianne Moore made the movie.  They were fun to watch.  They had good chemistry and made it enjoyable.  You take them out and my enjoyment goes with them.  The writing wasn't great, the directing wasn't great, the story wasn't great.  The two leads were and that’s all.

4 - 127 Hours

Ok, look.  It's 9:30 on Friday night and I'm still trying to get this done.  It's almost time for the friggin Oscars already and I still have to proofread so let's just make this quick.  I really liked this movie but I didn't love it.  I was actually close to picking it but at the end of the day it slipped for me.  If it won, it'd be a pleasant surprise and I wouldn't be mad, but I can't talk myself into picking it.

3 - Toy Story 3

Sometimes you just gotta go with what was the most fun thing to watch and Toy Story 3 was by far the most fun movie in this group.  It's funny and more action packed than even Inception was.  I honestly thought I was going to pick it but, much like 127 Hours, my thinking shifted and it slipped.

2 - Inception

Up until 5 minutes ago I had Inception as my top pick.  Is it the best movie?  Probably not.  But when the movies are as mediocre as this group mostly is, I generally tend to side on which movie was the most impressive.  Inception is that movie by far and it's the only movie on this list I will see more than once.  It is visually amazing, it's a big budget action flick that challenges its viewers mentally, it has a lot going for it.  What it lacks is a great story.  It has a great premise and amazing effects but at the end of the day it's just about some guys trying to steal something.  It didn't engage me.  I didn't really care about any of the characters in it, I didn't care if DiCaprio got to see his kids again, I didn't care that he lost his wife, I didn't care about any of it, I just wanted to see them fold a city.  I will still cheer for this movie and will still be amazed by some of the stuff they managed to do but it's not my pick.

1 - The King's Speech

This is a movie that is way, way, way, way better than it should be.  I didn't want to see it at all.  Who wants to watch a guy fight a stutter for 2 hours? But unlike True Grit, everything just clicked.  Everybody did their job, everything worked, all the pieces went together and somehow this boring story ended up engaging and even fun.  Every single character is likable on some level, even the jerks. And the dynamic lingering around in the background of this stuttering muttering prick having to somehow lead his country into war against Hitler, a guy who could give a speech like nobody's business, is something that really put the movie over the top for me.

And I just noticed something odd…. my reasons for picking this movie is almost exactly the same reasons why I picked An Eduction last year.  So in order to save time I'm just going to copy and paste my An Eduction review from last year and update it....

10 years from now I will look back at 2009 2010 and the only movie I'll still give a hoot about is Watchmen Kick Ass. I likely won't even remember watching An Education The King's Speech. But out of these 10 nominated movies it is by far the best of the bunch and I would say it's maybe the only one one of the few that would get an Oscar nomination in any other "good" year. It's not a great movie. It's not some great story that blows you away with its twists and turns. It's just a good, solid, well made movie with an extremely likable cast and that is the main thing that separates it from the other movies. It's likable. The characters and the actors who play them, every single one, are likable. The main characters, the supporting characters, the heroes, the villains, they all have some degree of likability to them. I enjoyed being with these people for a couple of hours. Unlike KRAZEEEEE!!!! guy the annoying little girl in True Grit or the rich white woman   characters rich white guys in The Social Network, I cared about these characters and what happened to them. Also unlike the other movies, I can't find a flaw to complain about or make fun of. The writing is fantastic, every single character is fully fleshed out and goes through their own big or small arcs. No character ends the movie the same person they were at the start. It’s not the big flashy spectacles some of these other movies are, it's just a good, solid, competent movie with a great cast and great writing. In other years that might not be enough to make it my favorite, but this year it is.

Prediction: The King’s Speech.

And with that I am done.  I wish I started this earlier so I wasn't so rushed.  Gottagokthxbye.

Saturday, May 29, 2010

In Defense of 2: Lost

Here we go again! The first thing I wrote about on this blog is the same thing that brings me back. The internet hates something again. Uh oh! Not Smallville this time, now it's Lost. The sad thing about the show is that from the very start I knew most people would hate the finale of Lost. There was just no way the show could ever satisfy people no matter how it ended. People had built up an ignorant level of love for this show and had inflated their expectations so high that there was just no way the writers could ever come out unscathed.

Personally I thought the episode was amazing. The directing, the writing and the acting were all top notch. I felt it was one of the best episodes of this show's 6 seasons and one of the best endings to a series of all time. And that comes from somebody who wasn't obsessed with the show like others were. I loudly and angrily complained about Lost and bashed it for much of it's run. The first season was great up until the last episode which was terrible. From then on the show had some good episodes mixed in with a LOT of bad episodes as the writers seemed to be throwing darts to decide what to do next. Out of 6 seasons there's probably about 3 seasons worth of good episodes. To me, this was a show that should've been on cable where the seasons would've been shorter. If this thing was only on for 10 episodes a year it would've been a lot better. Instead they had to drag about 20 episodes of story over 100. The show ended up dragging and dragging, moving at a snail's pace, going for weeks with nothing of interest happening.  It really was a crushing bore at times that was hard to stick with. The show didn't get back on track until they decided on an end date and the writers were forced to buckle down and get it finished.

At the end of the day I think the final episode, and the final season as a whole, saved the series and made all that middle part worth sitting through and even made some of it better. As far as the writers claiming they always knew how the show would end? I believe them, but everything in the middle was by the seat of their pants. (ed. note - In an interview with SciFiWire two days after this was written Cuse admitted as much.) In the world of television you just can't really set a detailed plan and follow it. Things happen that throw plans out the window. Mister Eko was supposed to be on the show for several seasons, suddenly he decides he wants off the show, there go all those plans. Desmond, Ben and Richard were all brought in and expected to be on the show for 2 or 3 episodes. Instead the actors were so good and the characters were so strong that they ended up lasting several seasons right up until the finale and playing major pivotal roles in everything that happened the past few seasons. Without Ben, Richard and Desmond, this show would be radically different. There are too many variables in television to expect a show to be able to make a 6 year plan and actually do it.

But I'm not here to attempt to change any body's mind about the episode itself. You either liked the episode or you didn't. I could care less about that. What kills me is that so many people aren't judging the episode on whether it was good or not, they're judging it by how many questions were answered. They're pissed because nobody explained meaningless things to them such as who was dropping food supplies 5 years ago. To the vast majority of these questions I respond with...who cares? Most of these questions have nothing at all to do with the plot of the show. Everything that mattered to the story and was important to the plot was answered. Yet people are unhappy because they don't know why the smoke monster made machine noises. What difference does it make to anything?  How does knowing every single detail help anything?

At the end of the day if all those little nitpicky mysteries were the only reason you watched the show, then you watched for the wrong reasons. This show was about the characters, not the all the goofy MacGuffins. The show was about a group of broken people trying to fix themselves and seek redemption. The title of the show wasn't about where these people were physically, it was about where they were spiritually. It was their souls that were lost. The show was never "about" the mysterious island. The mysterious island was the setting, nothing more than a backdrop to tell the real story.

A few days ago a video hit the internet that tried to ask all the remaining unanswered questions. It became a big hit and a rallying cry to all the people who hated the ending. Here it is...


The first time I watched it my response to all the questions was still......whoooooo cares? None of this makes a difference. My second response was...really? You people are using a video made by College Humor to make your point? The video kept spreading and spreading which lead to me watching it again and realizing I could most likely answer nearly every one of the questions. If you paid attention to the show and you have the ability to reason and think logically, a lot of these questions can easily be answered. So that's what I'm going to do.  I'm going to try to answer as many questions from that video as I can.

1. Why did the monster kill the pilot? Well, why not? He killed a lot of people. Does there have to be a reason for a monster to kill somebody? Monsters kill people, that is what makes them monsters.  If I had to come with an answer I'd say at this point we know The Others had lots of ways to get off the island and travel around. Maybe he killed the pilot to lessen their chances of somehow finding a way to leave. He needed the candidates to stay on the island so he could hopefully kill them off.

2. What did Locke see when he first saw the monster? He saw the monster! Why is it not enough that he saw a friggin monster made of friggin smoke?

3. What's with the polar bear in Walt's comic? I have two answers. 1 - Couldn't this just be an Easter Egg? Does everything have to mean something? Can't it just be a funny little joke by the creators to have a comic book with a polar bear in it on the island? 2 - Walt had supernatural powers. The theory at the time was that he made the polar bear appear with those abilities. The problem is that all this happened in the early days when JJ Abrams was running the show. Once he left midway through the first season and Lindelof/Cuse took over, the show made a few changes. This is one of the things that was dropped. Plus Walt wouldn't stop growing and had to be taken off the show. This is a plot thread that was changed and the polar bear was explained a different way.

4. What happened to Christian's body? Smokey hid it so he could impersonate him and talk to Jack.

5. Why did the Psychic insist Claire had to be on Oceanic 815 and she had to raise her baby herself? Let's clear up the order of this to begin with. The first time she visited him he told her to raise the baby herself. Later on he changed his story and told her to take Oceanic 815 so an L.A. couple could adopt the baby. The thing is, the psychic later admitted to Eko that he was a fraud and had no psychic powers. You could assume that telling her to raise the baby was nothing more than a lying psychic trying to tell somebody what they wanted to hear. He also admitted that the couple in L.A. paid him $16,000 to get Claire on the plane.

6. Why did The Others want Walt? Like was mentioned before, Walt was shown to be "special" and have several supernatural abilities. Plus we know babies couldn't be born on the island. The Others kidnapped children to add to their group because they couldn't have kids of their own. If they could get one that also had super powers...well...all the better.  They were hopful that Walt's abilities would some day make him their new leader.

7. Who sent Kate the letter? Tom, Kate's childhood sweetheart. This was blatantly explained.

8. How does Walt know about the hatch and tell them not to open it? Because he was psychic!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! How many times does this super powered kid have to be explained?

9. Why does the Smoke Monster make mechanical sounds? Because it sounded cool? Who gives a crap.  It had to sound like something.

10. How does Walt appear before Shannon? Whoever made this video is obsessed with Walt. Walt had powers. He had them before he even got on the island. This was all pointed out. Even in flashbacks it was shown he could appear in places he shouldn't. He had powers. Maybe if he didn't grow to 8 feet and ruin everything all of this would've been explained in detail later but they didn't get to, boo hoo.

11. How did Walt communicate with Michael using the Swan computer? He didn't. It was The Others talking to Michael in an effort to trick him.

12. What is the deal with Kate and the horse? Nothing. Her seeing the horse was nothing more than a way to trigger Kate's flashbacks. When she was captured by the FBI a horse was standing in the middle of the street, the FBI car swerved and crashed allowing Kate to escape. Seeing a horse on the island led to the flashback of that happening. At first it was played like this was some sort of mystical vision but then it was showed that the others could see the horse too, not just Kate. So isn't it logical to assume that this is just another animal brought to the island for testing just like the polar bears or sharks or rabbits?

13. Why are supplies still being dropped on the island? The Others have been pretending to be the Dharma people for decades. If the Hanso Foundation still believes their people are there and operations are going on they would continue to bring them supplies.

14. What triggered the lockdown and why were their black lights? The lockdown was triggered by the food supply drop. A note on the blast door said so. Maybe they wanted to keep people inside while giant boxes of food were being dropped so nobody got knocked on the noggin? As far as the black lights....those were there so you could see the "invisible" map on the wall. The map was created by Desmond and his partner. Perhaps they put the black lights in to allow them to create said map?

15. What happened to Henry Gale? Seriously? Henry Gale died of a broken neck, Ben buried him and took his identity. Gale arrived on the island via hot air balloon. He either broke his neck in the crash or Ben killed him.

16. What happened to the original timeline Libby? Her husband died, she went nuts for a little while and got put into a mental hospital. When she improved, she got out of the mental hospital. TA DA! That was a hard one!

17. Who built the four toed statue? The island travels through time and space. All kinds of people have ended up there over thousands of years. At some point in time the island was inhabited by Egyptians, they built the statue, the temple and the room that houses the big fancy wheel. The statue depicted the Egyptian goddess Taweret.  There are literally dozens of connections between Lost and Egyptian mythology.  The Egyptian connection has really been majorly over looked.

18. Why does only one specific bearing get you off the island? Because the island is hidden from the rest of the world by having some sort of mystical, magical dome around it. There is only one window that allows people to travel in and out of the dome, the bearing leads them to the window.

19. Why are there hieroglyphs on the countdown timer? Damon Lindelof explained that the Dharma Initiative included the hieroglyphs as an homage to the historical occupants of the island.

20. Why did Tom wear a fake beard? Because The Others were still trying to make the Oceanic survivors believe that they were a bunch of jungle living castaways instead of letting them know the truth about how sophisticated they really were.  You know, such as having an entire town with book clubs and jungle gyms.

21. Who was Libby's husband? Who cares? What does this change? But if you need to know her husband was named Dave and she had been married three times with two annulments.

22. Why were their skeletons in the polar bear's cave? BECAUSE IT ATE PEOPLE! They were wearing Dharma jumpsuits so obviously we know where they came from.

23. Where did the toy truck come from? The Dharma people had a whole town filled with families. Like one of the kids wouldn't have a toy truck??

24. How did Locke and Eko escape the hatch explosion? They didn't. They both suffered injuries.

25. Why couldn't Locke talk after the hatch exploded? Because he got hurt in the blast!

26. Why did Eko said "you're next" when he died? He didn't you non-paying attention jerk off. He said "I saw the devil". Afterwards Sayid asks Locke what Eko said and Locke replied "he said we're next". But he didn't, because we could hear what he said. The question here should be why did Locke lie.

27 and 28. Why did Yemi's body disappear and why did the monster kill Eko the second time meeting him? Because the asshole who played him wanted off the show. Exactly like Christian, Smokey took Yemi's body so he could impersonate him and try to manipulate Eko. Remember that he can't kill the candidates himself, but he CAN manipulate others into doing it. He tried to use Yemi to corrupt Eko, after Eko proved un-corruptible, he wasn't needed anymore.

29. Why did Danny say Jack's name wasn't on Jacob's list? Danny was taking orders from Ben. Ben was lying to everybody and pretending to take orders from Jacob when in fact he had never met Jacob up until the scene where he killed him for.....you got it....never talking to him.

30. Why can't women have babies on the island? Up until the 70s people were being born on the island just fine. What happened in the 70s that could change that? There was the attack by The Others on the Dharma people with a lot of poisonous gas, there was a nuclear explosion and there was a giant explosion of electromagnetism. Why can't women have babies? Take your pick.

31. What was the Russian letter in Mikhail's type writer? Who cares? A Russian guy typed a letter in Russian. Oooooooh! The leading theory is that Mikhail had been writing a novel while being alone in the station for so long.

32. Why is the supply drop menu hidden behind a game of computer chess? Well, maybe because they wanted it hidden so anybody and everybody couldn't access it? Why did Batman have to use a bust of William Shakespeare to enter the Batcave? Why does every haunted house have a hidden tunnel behind a book case?

33. What was Juliet's weird mark about? Juliet had killed one of The Others and was going to be executed. Ben decided to let her live but brand her in Scarlet Letter fashion. This mark would let everybody know she was a traitor and murderer. Also it was an 8 pointed star or wheel. The wheel that moves the island also has 8 points. In Buddhism an 8 point wheel is called a Wheel of Dharma. Get it? DHARMA?? To "turn the wheel of dharma" means to reveal the universal truths necessary to the path of enlightenment. It also symbolizes rebirth and renewal. It was a way of punishing her for going against their group but also a way of welcoming her back in anew.

34. What’s the deal with Jack's tattoos? Most of them are not Jack's tattoos. They are Matthew Fox's tattoos. They're real, not storyline. They incorporated one into one of Jack's flashbacks where they showed how he got them in Thailand but what it all comes down to is that they're just tattoos.

35. How did the monk know Eloise? You finally stumped me.

36. Why did Ben see his dead mother? Why does Dexter see his dead father?

37. Who ordered and planned The Purge? Ben did. He claimed responsibility at one point when he told Jack that he made a decision to kill 40 people in one day. This was also touched on later when Charlotte and Faraday arrived on the island and had to neutralize the gas to make sure Ben wouldn't use it again. Yes, it's true that at one point Ben also claimed he was under orders that day, but as we learned before, Ben was always lying about taking orders from Jacob.

38. What happened to Annie? Children were evacuated off the island in 1977. She was a children then. Put 2 and 2 together.

39. Why did Desmond have a false vision of Claire and Aaron getting on the helicopter? Almost none of Desmond's visions came true because they did things to stop them from happening. So this showed that just because he saw vision, things could change. He wasn't seeing the future, he was seeing a possible future. Claire had the chance to get on the helicopter but refused after learning about Charlie's death and warning. Aaron DID get on the helicopter.

40. Why does Mikhail keep coming from back to life? Mikhail's first "death" was when Locke pushed him between the sensor pylons. They believed he was dead and left him there. When he showed back up he explained that he survived because the pylons were not set to a lethal level. His second "death" was when he got shot by a spear gun and once again, believed dead, was left alone. It turned out the shot didn't kill him but seriously wounded him. Since he was dying anyway he went all suicide bomber on Charlie. He didn't come back from that one. So in reality, he NEVER came back to life because he was never killed until he killed himself.

41. Why does Walt tell John he has more work to do? Why does everything have to be literal? John was on the verge of killing himself when all of a sudden he saw a vision of his little black kid friend telling him he still has work to do. Can't this just be a visual representation of what went through his mind? Movies and TV do that all the time. Not everything means something.

42. I couldn't understand the next question but I believe it was who is the guy in the cabin with the beard? I would theorize that it was Jacob. Let's be real, these people had no idea who they would end up casting to play Jacob years later. Showing a flash of some old dude with a beard probably made a lot of sense at the time.

43. Where did Miles get that picture of Ben? Miles and his team were sent to the island to capture Ben by Widmore. Widmore gave them a picture to know what Ben looked like. What a twist!

44. Who is R.G. on Naomi's bracelet? Good grief. Who gives a flying turkey? It's her boyfriend or husband, he gave her a friggin bracelet!!

45. Why was there a difference between the timers? Perhaps you missed the part where the island travels through time?

46. Who is the economist and why did Ben want him dead? The economist was one of the members of Charles Widmore's team who were trying to hunt down the Oceanic Six to get them back on the island along with Widmore himself. Ben was Widmore's arch-rival, he didn't want him to get on the island with the six, he wanted to get HIMSELF back on the island so he manipulated Sayid into killing the members of Widmore's team.

47. Why was Ben surprised they could kill Alex? Because to Ben he had spent his entire life trying to protect the island and in all that time the island had done nothing in return for him. It didn't heal his spinal tumor, Jacob never talked to him and now it didn't protect his daughter when he thought it would.

48. How does Christian appear to Jack off the island? Once again, does everything have to be literal? Dexter talks to his dead father in every single episode but nobody asks how this can happen. It's just a visual way to show the inner dialogue of what is going on inside Jack's head. AND during these times Jack is an alcohol and drug addict. Hello? McFly?

49. How does the Smoke Monster get into Jacob's cabin? He used the door.

50. Why does he tell Locke not to say Claire was in the cabin? Smokey had begun to infect Claire and turn her to his side, he wanted this info secret.

51. Why did Horace tell Locke to meet Jacob in the cabin when it was really the Smoke Monster? Because Horace WAS the Smoke Monster.

52. Why did the Oceanic Six claim Boone, Libby and Charlie survived and what’s the logic in that? Because this allowed them to use details from their actual deaths to make their story sound better. They claimed Boone did of internal injuries from a plane crash, he did. They said Charlie drowned, he did. Using real details made it easier to come with a realistic sounding lie. And by telling people everybody else died it would hopefully keep people from looking for them and possibly finding the island.

53. Why does Miles decide to stay on the island? Miles was on the island as a boy and somehow got his ability to speak to the dead there. He wants to stay and investigate his past.

54. What's the deal with the wheel? It's a device created years ago to control and regulate the power that is inside the island. Sort of an ancient version of the button inside the hatch. Turn the wheel enough and enough power gets released to move the island.

55. Why does Ben insist the Oceanic Six return to the island? Because he wanted to get back on the island himself. He needed them to do it.

56. Why doesn't Desmond travel through time? He did time travel, just differently than everybody else. Desmond was changed by the blast of electromagnetism in the hatch. He gained the ability of 4D time travel. His consciousness time traveled, not his body. He existed in all time at the same time. So you could give the 1992 Desmond a message and the 2004 Desmond would also receive it.  He was the Dr Manhatten of Lost.

57. Who were the men who tried to capture Sayid and Hurley? It was Ben's people. Sayid was turning on him and trying to turn Hurley against him as well. Ben needed them to help him get back to the island so he sent his men to capture them, that's why they were using tranq guns.

58. Who are Gabriel and Jeffery? THE TWO MEN WHO TRIED TO CAPTURE SAYID AND HURLEY! Wow. Idiots.

59. What was Ben's package? It was his box of money, fake IDs, passports and guns we had seen him have before.

60. Who was shooting from the outrigger? The group was traveling through time over and over again. At one point they had arrows shot at them by some sort of jungle living group of savages. Different people were attacking them as they jumped through different points in time on the island.

61. Who sent Sun a gun and the photos of Ben and Jack? This is something else that was blatantly explained in the episode. Widmore sent her the picture and gun because she had gone to him and told him she wanted to kill Ben who she blamed for Jin's "death".

62. Who attacked Sayid in the hospital? There were three men trying to get the Oceanic 6 back on the island.  Ben, Widmore and Jacob.  All three had plenty of muscle to do so.  You pick your favorite answer.

63. Why was the Smoke Monster at the temple? There is a maze of tunnels and chambers underneath the temple. The monster can be inside there, he can't be inside the actual temple.

64. How did the producers of Expose deal with the death of their two lead actors? Who cares?

65. Why do the Oceanic Six have to re-create the original crash to return to the island? Because it's mother fucking magic, bitch. It's all in the air.

66. Why did Jack, Hurley and Kate arrive in the 70s and Sun did not? Sun was not the candidate, Jin was.  When they returned to the island Jack, Hurley and Kate flashed to where the other candidates, Sawyer and Jin, were.  The non-candidates landed in present time.

67. How did Richard bypass the sonar fence? First of all, it was shown that anybody could go through the fence if they wore ear plugs. Also each post had a keypad to deactive the fence.  With Richard in particular, he was immortal and could not kill himself. Every time he tried, nothing happened. So he could likely walk right through the fence and because he was doing it of his own free will, he wouldn't have been killed.

68. How did Ethan go from being Dharma to one of The Others? The same way Ben and dozens of other people did.

69. What's with the hieroglyphics in the temple? The temple was made by the Egyptians! How many times does this need to be explained?

70. Why did Widmore order Ben to kill the French broad? The French science team was actually sent to the island by Widmore himself in an effort to gain more knowledge and control over the island. Once the team failed he wanted the last surviving member dead so The Others wouldn't learn of his dastardly plot.

71. Why does Daniel leave the island in the 70s? He was distraught over the death of Charlotte and wanted off the island. When he got the chance to go to Dharma HQ and continue his research there instead of being on the island, he took it.

72. Why did he tell Jack he didn't belong there? He was wrong. Daniel was a scientist trying to come up with all sorts of theories about what was going on with the island and nearly all of them were completely wrong. Remember his idea that blowing up the atom bomb would be a reset button? Wrong. Again.

73. Why does Richard say he saw everybody in the 1977 Dharma picture die? Because they blew up the atom bomb and vanished, sent back to present time. To anybody in 1977, they wouldn't assume the bomb sent them through time, they would assume they died in the blast.

74. Who broke the circle of ash around the cabin? Likely somebody who was being manipulated by Smokey so he could enter it.

75. Why can Jacob leave the island and Smokey can't? The Man in Black wanted to leave the island his entire life.  When Jacob threw him into the light and promised him a fate worse than death, he got turned into the monster and trapped on the island.  Not being able to leave the island was his fate worse than death.

76. Jacob uses his last breath to say they're coming. Who are they? The Candidates. They were about to set off the bomb and return to present time.

77. What's the deal with the pool that brings people back to life? It's a Lazarus Pit. Don't you read Batman? Seriously, the pool does NOT bring people back to life. It's just another healing function of the island. They didn't put Sayid in the pit because he was dead, he died IN the pool. He wasn't supposed to die and he wasn't supposed to come back, that's why Jacob's people were shocked when it happened. The problem is that the pit had become corrupted by Smokey after Jacob's death and putting Sayid in the pool infected him with Smokey's evil.

78. What is the infection? It is the poisoning of the mind that comes from Smokey's manipulations.

79. How did Claire get infected? She spent 3 years on the island alone with the Smoke Monster.

80. How did Sayid get infected? He got put in the dark pool like I done did said.

81. Why did Sayid have to voluntarily take a pill to kill himself when he could just be turned back so easily by a few words from Desmond? I believe the pill was more a test of Jack's abilities at being the new protector than it was about Sayid. And nobody ever said infected people couldn't be turned back. Smokey's holds on both Sayid and Claire were clearly broken by their friends.

82. Why is Smokey/MIB/Locke surprised Sawyer can see young Jacob? Because earlier in the exact same episode he saw the boy with Richard but Richard couldn't see him. This likely lead to Locke believing that it was a vision only he was seeing. Therefore it was shocking when somebody else DID see him.

83. What’s the magic lighthouse about? It's how Jacob keeps track of his candidates.

83. How did Dogan keep Smokey out of the lighthouse? He didn't, he kept him out of the temple.

84. What happened to Cindy and the kids? They're likely still on the island and went on with fun and adventures with Ben and Hurley.

85. Why didn't Sun tell Jin to go to take care of their daughter? Jin made it clear that he wasn't going to leave her so she knew it was a waste of time. She was rich from the Oceanic settlement, that dumb kid will be just fine without them with all that money.

86. Where did Jacob and Smokey's mother come from? A ship wreck. All those people that Man in Black lived with were from the same ship wreck.

87. How did their other mother get there? A SHIP WRECK!!! The same way pretty much EVERYBODY got there.

87. Who finished the wheel? This is one of the funniest questions because the answer seems pretty obvious. Who started building the wheel? Man in Black. Well, who has lived on the island for thousands of years since then? Man in Black. Sure, Man in Black was killed before he got to finish it the first go around, but then he was resurrected as the Smoke Monster and has spent thousands of years trying to escape the island. When he was alive he felt this wheel was the way off the island and he was right. The only problem is that after he finished it he found out it would no longer work on him because he had become trapped on the island after becoming the monster.

88. What is the nature of the light? A MacGuffin is "a plot element that catches the viewers' attention or drives the plot of a work of fiction". The defining aspect of a MacGuffin is that the major players in the story are willing to do and sacrifice almost anything to obtain it, regardless of what the MacGuffin actually is. In fact, the specific nature of the MacGuffin may be ambiguous, undefined, generic, left open to interpretation or otherwise completely unimportant to the plot. The Maltese Falcon. The briefcase in Pulp Fiction. The Dark Tower.

89. Magic wine? There was no magic wine. Drinking something was part of the ceremony for one protector to pass on the responsibility to a new one. Jacob was giving wine by his mother but Jack and Hurley both got water. It had nothing to do with the wine.

90. Why did Zoe want an electromagnetic map of the island? They were trying to find the heart of the island, the source, the light. Since that was the source of the electromagnetism, a map would've shown them where the electromagnetism was stronger, thus leading them to the heart of the island, the source, the light.

91. How did Widmore's electromagnetic thingie send Desmond to the afterlife and back? It didn't, he just saw it in one of his visions. He didn't "go" there.  He's been seeing visions and traveling through time for YEARS now, suddenly its wait a minute how did this happen?? And have you ever been zapped by a giant electromagnetic thingie? How do you know this wouldn't happen?

92. Wasn't Nadia Sayid's soulmate? Obviously not. He may have loved her at one point, and married her after escaping the island, but Shannon was obviously his true love. Even in the flash-sideways that weren't even real, Sayid made a world where he couldn't be with Nadia. He was waiting for Shannon, his real soul mate. And why is this relationship the only one people ask questions about? Kate was in love with Tom her entire life and ended up getting him killed, yet she went to Heaven with Jack. Jack himself had been in love and married before the island. That didn't stop him from going with Kate. Libby had a husband she loved so much that when he died she went insane, yet her soul mate was Hurley.

93. Why wasn't Michael, Walt, Lapidas or Eko in the Church? Michael was way too evil to make it in and had a ways to go before being able to move on just like Ben. They tried to get Eko to be in the scene but he demanded 5 times the amount of money they were willing to pay him. But really, if you look at who was there, that was the main group. For the most part that was the group who had been on the show from episode one to episode whatever the last one was. That was the main group. They were all really and truly connected to one another. The few that weren't there throughout it all, Shannon, Boone, Juliette and Penny all still had VERY strong connections to the others. It was explained that the flash-sideways purgatory thing was a little world they all created for themselves so all these people could find each other before moving on to the afterlife. Well, all the people who had strong connections to each other were there. Why WOULD Michael, Walt, Lapidas or Eko be included? They didn't have the same strong connections to the group that the rest of the characters did.

And that's that. Let me tell ya, I had no idea this video had so many questions. I thought this would take hours, not days.

Now, am I 100% positive that all my answers are absolutely the correct answer? Not at all. I think the vast majority of them are and to me they make sense, others may have other theories that disagree with me, but isn't that what made Lost such a landmark show? Why does anybody want all the answers anyway? It's like being amazed at a magic trick and wondering how they did it, but once you find out how they did it, the magic trick isn't fun anymore.

The thing that set Lost apart from so many other shows is that it challenged it's viewers to be smart, to think for themselves and find the answers on their own. The way the show ended leaves it as a show where you can watch it again and again and again and come up with your own theories about this, that and the other thing. Now that you know how it ended you can go back through and try to fill in the blanks. For years and even decades to come, couch sleuths and internet detectives will continue to debate theories and dissect the show scene by scene looking for clues and the answers to all the riddles. If it had simply answered all the questions, the show would be over. By not answering every little question, the show lives forever.

Friday, March 26, 2010

All Black People Please Leave This Blog aka The Walmart Prank

Have you ever heard of the Westboro Baptist Church? You probably have. It's that church that protests anywhere gay people are with their silly signs like "God Hates Fags" or "Death Penalty for Fags" and generally accomplish nothing but being really annoying.

They began by picketing at the funerals of gay people who were the victims of murder, gay-bashing or AIDS but soon branched out into other areas. They most famously picket at soldier's funerals but they also picket at cop funerals. They picketed after one of the space shuttle disasters and blamed it on homosexuals. They did the same at the memorial for the Sago Mine collapse victim's memorial. Once they even protested at a local appliance store for selling Swedish made vacuum cleaners. Seriously.

They're some of the most sickening, vile and stupid people on Earth but they're allowed to be that way. It turns out its actually legal in this country to stand outside a funeral for a dead soldier with a sign that says he's burning in Hell. Even when they've been sued the courts have sided with the church. It's legal to offend people in the United States.  It's legal for skinheads to have their awful punk rock shows and wear their dorky suspenders. It's legal for the KKK to parade down the street dressed like ghosts. It's legal for Nazis to goose step up and down the sidewalk in their silly outfits.

Yet a 16 year old kid gets on the PA system at a Walmart and says "Attention Walmart customers, all black people leave the store" and everybody gets sand in their vaginas. The police have to waste their time and resources to track down some kid who pulled a completely harmless prank instead of working on real crimes. This kid is now facing a year in prison for bias, intimidation and harassment.

While all this was going on the Westboro Baptist Church was in New York picketing the funeral of a cop killed in the line of duty. They also spent the week picketing outside several high schools in South Carolina and their schedule says you can join them on the 27th picketing outside a Kevin Smith appearance in Kansas City. (Smith's next movie "Red State" is a horror movie loosely based on the church.)

These are some of the actual comments made from witnesses to the protests:

"In 2010, I want to know why such statements are being made. It flies in the face of what we teach our kids, and that's tolerance."

"I can't believe it in this day and age."

"Appalling, stupid and sad."

"One cannot begin to imagine how people must have felt hearing that, disbelief, dismay and horror are just a few of the terms that come to my mind."

"Obviously racist."

"This was an extremely disturbing event on many levels."

"Any statements like these that can cause harm or grave concern must be addressed as quickly as we can."

"They deserve 25 to life in prison!"

"Some people just left in disgust and said they couldn't believe it."

Oh....wait.....those comments aren't from witnesses to the protesters who are spreading real hate and real evil, those are the over-reactions by a bunch of idiots in a Walmart over a 16 year old's harmless prank. The protest over the cop's funeral barely made the news.

The point of this is not me saying that if you're going to throw the book at the kid, that you have to also throw the book at the picketers. Not at all. Westboro Baptist Church should be allowed to say whatever they want within reason. The First Amendment gives them that right. After all, the greatest freedom a democracy affords its people is the right to offend. Lose the ability to offend and you're no longer living in a free society. My point is what happened to priorities and context in our society? Why can't people tell the difference between something done out of humor and stupidity and something done out of real racism and hatred? Why is everybody so happy to play the victim? Why do we allow the media to pick and choose who they crucify and who they don't?

Five years ago this prank at Walmart would've resulted in nothing. No outrage. No police investigation. No media coverage. It's not like this is the first time it's ever happened. Check Youtube, people have been doing crap like this on store PAs for years. If the kid was caught he'd probably get a slap on the wrist and a grounding. But in this post-Nappy Headed Ho world where the media has to blow every single meaningless racial incident out of proportion, the kid gets arrested and his life has been changed forever. He now has a police record. He's been removed from school. Whenever an employer checks his background he's going to see that arrest for bias, intimidation and harassment. He has the letter R stamped on his forehead for the rest of his life because he did something stupid to make his friends giggle.

A few days ago, during the health care vote, protesters stood outside Capital Hill yelling nigger at Rep. John Lewis, faggot at Rep. Barney Frank and spitting on Rep. Emanuel Cleaver as they entered the building. That's real hatred. That's real racism. That's real bias, intimidation and harassment. Yet, the media didn't give it a tenth of the coverage they gave this Walmart kid. Why? Maybe because there were no idiots there willing to play the victim and give a good sound bite for the man on the street segment?

Cleaver's office released this statement: "This is not the first time the Congressman has been called the N word and certainly not the worst assault he has endured in his years fighting for equal rights for all Americans."

Boom. Story over. A far cry from Walmart's statement of "this was an extremely disturbing event on many levels."

Maybe the difference is Cleaver understands that reacting the way Walmart and its customers did is what made the situation explode into such ridiculousness. Cleaver got spit on and the N bomb dropped on him and his response was....meh, whatever. Maybe he understands that words only have the power we allow them to have. Maybe he understands that the way to defeat racism isn't to feed it the attention it craves but to ignore it. The Westboro Baptist Church can hold up all the signs they want, but if everybody just realizes what a joke they are and ignores them, they lose every single bit of power they have. Getting upset at racial based humor or stupid comments by people not knowing what they're saying and getting people fired for slipping up and accidentally saying the wrong thing just feeds the racism machine and gives more fuel to real racism.

A Boston school principal was fired a few days ago after he quoted John Lennon's song "Woman is the Nigger of the World" to two women in a private conversation in his office. He didn't know it would offend anybody, he didn't think he was doing anything wrong, it was just a song...from a friggin Beatle no less. Yet now he's jobless and once again some innocent dummy has the letter R stamped on his forehead. Think it's going to be easy for him to find a new teaching job when he has to constantly explain no, no, no, I'm not really racist, I just like John Lennon? It's pathetic. This guy, Walmart kid and countless others may be guilty of being stupid and not thinking before they speak, but they're not racists or hate mongers. They're just dumb. By crucifying every single one of these guys who make an innocent mistake and never letting sorry be enough, we're doing nothing but inciting real hatred and real racism. It’s time for America to look at itself in the mirror and say sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me.

Tuesday, March 16, 2010

The Future of Television is Here!! (to rip you off)

It finally happened. Fancy New York couple Brad and Ashley became the first people in America who were suckered into buying a 3DTV at Best Buy last week. For over $3,000 dollars they got a 50 inch 3DTV, a 3D Blu-ray player and one pair of 3D glasses. The good news for them is that there is zero 3D media available yet so they won't have to worry about swapping that one pair of glasses back and forth.

Am I the only person in the world who understands what a joke this 3DTV push is? What a blatant rip-off it is? People seem so happy that they get to waste thousands of dollars on buying a new TV, a new Bluray player, a new movie library and extra glasses. Can't you see through the lies and see that this is just a huge sham?

First of all, just the fact that everybody acts like this 3D stuff is something new and different drives me nuts. 3D shows up every 20-30 years, they claim it’s going to revolutionize the world before people get sick of it and it goes away. Even the 3D we have now (Avatar 3D as known by most) is absolutely nothing new. It's the same 3D that IMAX has been using since 1986 and there have been over 40 movies released in the format since 1990. 2009 alone saw Coraline, Monsters vs Aliens, Up, X Games 3D, My Bloody Valentine and Final Destination 3D all released in the exact same 3D format as Avatar before Avatar hit, yet people still act like Avatar invented it. The best part is Fox's claim that Avatar can't be released in 3D on DVD or Bluray. Why not? Those other movies were. Oh yeah, because now they want you to buy a new TV, a new Bluray player and a few pairs of glasses and then you'll get your 3D Avatar at home. Riiiiiiiiiiight. I get it.

Second of all, and more importantly, you can already get 3D in your house without buying all this crap they're trying to sell you.

I enjoy a good 3D movie as much as the next guy and probably more so. Having 3D at home is a pretty cool thing to use every once in a while. I know because I have a 3D system in my house so I know how cool it is. The only difference is mine cost less than a hundred dollars, not three thousand and I bought it about 10 years ago. All it is is a little black box that weighs a few ounces. You take the output from your DVD player and plug it into the 3D box, take the output from the 3D box to your TV, plug in your polarized 3D glasses (wireless also available) and there ya go, stereoscopic 3D just like you see in any IMAX theater and just like you saw with Avatar. And unlike these 3DTV setups, there is actually a vast library of movies available. Every IMAX 3D original movie is available, there are a few direct to DVD releases for it and pretty much every single 3D feature film ever released has been formatted for the system. I have about 30 movies myself including Dial M for Murder, Amityville 3D, Friday the 13th 3D, Radar Men from the Moon, House of Wax, Night of the Living Dead, Creature from the Black Lagoon and many more I can't think of off the top of my head. Over the years people have looked at my 3D movie collection and felt the need to tell me that some of these movies weren't even shot for 3D. My reply has always been yeah, that is why they're cool. There's not a million things flying at you, it simply adds a cool depth to everything. Now these same people tell me how cool Avatar was in 3D because things didn't fly at you, it just had a lot of cool depth. Really?

The only drawback to the system I have is that it doesn't work with progressive signals so it's not in HD. But I bought my system for less than 100 dollars and for my money I got the box, 2 pairs of glasses and 4 movies. There are more up to date boxes out these days that work on anything but plasma and projection TVs for $150. You can also get the same system for your PC for $110. These new boxes not only allow you to watch the 3D DVDs but it can also format everything into 3D. You can watch any movie you want in 3D. You can play your Xbox in 3D. Is it going to work perfectly? Probably not. But for 150 bucks, way less on Ebay, is it fun? Absolutely.

So if these kinds of boxes exist, why are we having 3DTV shoved down our throats? Are you telling me that all the geniuses at Sony, Panasonic, Samsung and Toshiba, etc couldn't put their heads together and take the existing set top 3D box technology and figure out how to make it better? How to make it in HD and work with plasmas, projections, whatever? Even if the price of the system jumped from $150 to $1000 wouldn't that still be a much better product and one way easier to sell to the masses?

Instead they're trying to act like this technology doesn't exit. They're trying to convince us that the only way this will work is with a new TV and a new Bluray player? Are you kidding? Ok...a new TV, that's one thing, but why the new Bluray player? What is the purpose of this? Isn't the movie just put on the disc in 3D? What does the Bluray player have to do with it? The main thing you need with stereoscopic 3D is something that will synchronize the flickering of the screen with the flickering inside your glasses and the TV has to be able to handle a 120hz signal. That's it. So shouldn't you just need the 3DTV? Shouldn't just one of these things be able to handle the job that needs to be done? Look at the Playstation 3. The only thing a PS3 needs to be able to play 3D Blurays is a firmware update. That's it. DirecTV will be offering up 3D channels this summer. Do you need a new box to make them work? No. A free software update will turn your existing DirecTV HD box into a 3D DirecTV HD box. Today  Comcast announced that they will be carrying a 3D version of the Masters golf tournament today.  Did they have to go around and change everybody's boxes?  No.  You just need an HD box hooked up with HDMI.  Isn't all this 100% proof that we don't need to buy a whole new set up in order to get 3D? Why isn't just the 3DTV enough?

The absolute greed of these companies and their undying desire to rip every last cent out of our wallets is amazing. HDTV itself still isn't fully accepted and Bluray is still a ways off from being considered mainstream but here we go again with yet another new technology? 3DTVs alone are priced from $2000 to $8000 dollars. The Bluray players are $400 minimum. Extra glasses are $150 each. For the glasses!!! Do you really think 3D glasses costs 150 bucks? Do you think every single pair of glasses in those huge bins outside every Avatar screening cost 150 bucks each? That movie still wouldn't be profitable if they had to spend 150 dollars on every pair of glasses. Are you kidding me? And the glasses are proprietary so you can't buy any brand of glasses to use with your TV, it can only be the glasses made by the manufacturer of the TV.  Nobody has announced how much 3D Blurays will cost but I can only imagine.  They're still trying to charge $30 for regular Blurays so I can easily see 3D Blurays being $50.

Brad and Ashley, I'm sure it's tough to wait to finally get some 3D content on that fancy 3DTV of yours so I'm sure you're both really looking forward to next month's release of the first 3D Blurays. Monsters vs Aliens will be coming out first and soon after that will be Shrek 3D. I hope you two like kids movies....wait.....what? Hold on, I'm getting word of breaking news.....really? Are you sure? Ooooohhhhh, sorry Brad and Ashley, looks you won't be getting any 3D Blurays next month since you bought the Panasonic bundle. These brilliant companies have decided to pull the same BS move they did during the HD-DVD vs Bluray war and make exclusive agreements with the different studios. Dreamworks and Samsung have entered an exclusive agreement where their 3D Blurays are only available with the Samsung bundle for the first year. That's gotta suck, but hey, 3DTVs can at least format any 2D signal into 3D so you're getting something out of it, right? Oh.....wait......hold on........the Panasonic models do NOT do that. Wow. Really? But Sony, Samsung and Toshiba models do. You two really didn't think this through did ya?  You shoulda did some of that browsing.

What really kills me is the practicality of all this. Who wants to sit around with 3D glasses on all the time? Who wants to make their entire family sit around with them on too? Who can even afford to buy enough glasses for their entire family anyway? Imagine how a Superbowl party would be. How many extra glasses would you need? How funny would it be to watch people missing their mouths with their beer bottles or missing the bowl of dip with their chip because these stupid glasses are messing up their vision? And let's not forget that for most of these models you have to sit directly in front of the screen for the 3D effect to work. Who wants to have everybody huddled on top of one another? Some of the models are including a tilt feature that allows you to adjust the direction that the 3D effect goes so that you can sit to one side or the other. But once again, everybody has to sit wherever you tilted it toward. That's another thing, every single one of these 3DTVs has different features. Some do this, some do that, some tilt, some don't, some format 2D to 3D, some don't, some come with two pairs of glasses, some come with one, some come with none, some come with movies, some don't......by time you do enough research to know which 3DTV you want, hologram TVs will be out.

It seems that the most logical and practical 3DTV would be one that doesn't require glasses. No glasses 3D is already a reality in Japan and it will probably arrive in the US within the next couple of years making this generation of 3DTVs an even more illogical waste of time and money.

The fact that 3DTVs already exist does make me laugh though. One reason Hollywood put so much effort into bringing 3D back into theaters is that they felt the movie going experience was getting its ass kicked by the home theater experience. Why go to the theater when you can watch the same movies at home in three months with much better video, better sound and nobody talking through the movie? The idea was that you'd go to the movies because every movie in the theater would be in 3D and you couldn't get that at home. Now TV has fought back and now everything on TV can be in 3D. And why is TV making the move now? Because of the other reason that Hollywood used it. Piracy. The idea is that making everything 3D will make it much harder for people to put their movies and shows on the internet. Like I said, I have a 3D system so I've done quite a lot of online trading to get movies for it and the studios are right. The current "bootleg" tech doesn't make it easy to upload or download these movies because they can't be compressed at all. Unlike most DVDs which get ripped to AVIs, 3D movies can't be compressed without losing the 3D effect so you can only trade full DVDs. The idea is that the file size would get so big, and with more and more ISPs putting bandwidth caps on their customers, file sharing would get a lot harder. That is why they're trying to shove it down our throats and in my view, the only reason.

3D is a lot like health care. Something the majority doesn’t want or doesn't really care about, yet they're going with it anyway. 3D is a fad. It always has been and it always will be. At first people get caught up in how cool it looks, but eventually they get tired of having to wear glasses and tired of crap constantly flying at them. That's just the way it is. People will get sick of this current generation of 3D too and at the end of day all we're going to see is a big pile of 3D equipment in every junkyard along with Betamax players, Laserdisc players, HD-DVD players, a million "As Seen on TV" products and a Big Mouth Billy Bass as the cherry on top.