If They Made a Movie About This Movie, I Wouldn’t Believe It

This past weekend, Furious 7 made the news yet again.  For the fourth consecutive weekend, it was #1 at the box office.  That makes it the first movie since The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 1 to do so and only the 25^th movie overall to achieve that feat.  In addition, it is the 3^rd movie in history to make over $1 billion worldwide (the other two being Titanic and Avatar) and is now the 5^th biggest box office hit of all time.

Let me repeat again…the SEVENTH movie in this series has made over $1 billion.  It would be one thing if this was the 7^th Harry Potter movie (a hugely successful franchise based on a best-selling series of novels) or the 7^th Star Wars movie (a franchise that has become a modern-day mythology).  But this is a series that was began by a 2001 rip-off of Point Break.  While the first movie was entertaining and nicely made (for what it was), if someone had told me back then that the 7^th movie in the series would be one of the biggest box office hits of all time, my immediate response would be “this movie will have SEVEN movies???”

With most franchises (Star Wars & Harry Potter excluded), you tend to follow the law of diminishing financial returns.  Each sequel usually makes less than the previous one and, after a few movies, audiences tend to get bored of the topic and it becomes a joke.  Horror movie franchises (Friday the 13^th, Saw, Nightmare on Elm Street) are perfect examples of this.  Most of the time, it is because the filmmakers are following the same formula again and again and, after a short while, audiences ask “how many times am I going to watch Rocky beat up an opponent?” or “how many times can Bruce Willis save the world?”.  And, because the films are following the same formula, laziness of movie making starts to set in and the quality quickly drops.

The Fast & the Furious serious, on the other hand, breaks all those rules.  While the 2^nd through 4^th films just barely kept the series going (Tokyo Drift is fun but feels like a Direct to DVD release).  But the fifth film (with the hilariously quasi-imaginative title Fast Five) turned it around.  I still remember seeing it in the theater.  At that point, I was growing bored of the series and went to see it in the theater, expecting to trash it and say how dumb it was.  But, as I was sitting there watching a very well-directed and well-choreographed chase through the streets of Brazil, I sat there and realized, to my shock, that I was seriously enjoying this.  The movie was trash to be sure.  After all, it had The Rock sweating in every scene for the simple reason he looked good that way.  But, it was fun trash.  I was never bored by the movie and it was clear that Justin Lin found the perfect tone for it – knowing ridiculousness.  By pushing it so far over the top, it allowed him to get away a scene like the one where the gang drag a room-size safe down the road at top speed.

It was this sense of fun and ridiculousness that has carried the movie forward.  The films also made the smart decision to get away from simple street racing onto different style plots and more elaborate stunts.  This has come to a head in Furious 7.  In one scene, a series of cars parachute from a plane.  Note, I didn’t say the men parachuted; I said the cars did.  And, of course, they landed safely on the road and immediately started speeding in a wonderfully orchestrated street chase on the side of a mountain.  At this point in the series, you are laughing so much with the movie that when one of the characters drives his car down the side of a mountain, you just shrug your shoulders and go “whatever”.

The ultimate secret of the movie and the reason why audiences have responded to it so positively is its treatment of the characters.  Even though the stunts are increasingly over the top (at this point, the only way they can top themselves is drive the cars on the moon), the characters have relationships that ring true.  From the first movie there was a sweet bromance between Paul Walker and Vin Diesel that has carried through the series.  Never is it more apparent than in the ending of Furious 7.  During the filming of the movie, Paul Walker died in a car accident.  Because he was such a fundamental character (he had starred in 6 out of 7 of the movies), they couldn’t ignore him.  Thus, the filmmakers were stuck trying to find a tactful way of handling his absence.  They came up with an ending that was sweet and heartfelt.  At the end, Walker’s character decides to leave the life and spend time with his wife and children.  At that point, Vin Diesel, in voice over, makes a very loving and kind speech that acts as both a summary of his character’s feelings and acts as a kind eulogy for Paul Walker.  It’s tough to watch that scene and not become somewhat misty eyed.  What’s sweet is that it feels sincere and non-manipulative.  You can tell that it was done out of love for the actor and the character.

It is this sincerity that carries the series.  We are willing to go with the slow motion Looney Tunes-style fights between Vin Diesel and Jason Stratham or seeing cars dive from the tops of buildings as long as the characters ring true.  Because no matter how cartoonish the action is, it is done with such skill and such affection, that you can’t help but smile.

Is this high art?  Hardly.  Is this damn entertaining?  Definitely.  Will I go see Fast 8 regardless of who is in it and or what the plot is about?  Count me as already having bought the ticket.

Frozen -- The real debut of a promising director

Earlier this year, a friend of mine wanted me to sit through the horror movie Hatchet written and directed by Adam Green. She had worked as the publicist for the movie and told me how popular the movie was. After sitting through 90 minutes of laughable acting (when Kane Hodder -- the former Jason Vorhees -- is giving the most nuanced performance in the film, that's saying something), derivative plot, REALLY bad special effects and over the top gore, she asked what I thought. I didn't want to be rude so I tried to find something positive to say and the best I could come up with "Well....the director kept the camera in focus most of the time".

Thus, it's understandable that she was not really looking forward to hearing my comments about his followup movie Frozen. Because she was also involved as the publicist for this movie, I can understand that she was afraid that I was going to trash this movie as much as I did Hatchet and I did for the trailer for the sequel Hatchet II. But, I was very happy to point out to her that my reaction to this movie was much different. While it did have some flaws, overall, I found it to be a very disciplined and well directed motion picture and one that shows that Adam Green does in deed have potential.

Frozen is, basically, a winter version of Deep Water (the wonderful film about a couple who get stranded in the middle of shark-infested waters with no hope in sight). In this film, 3 kids (Emma Bell as the cute, perky blonde, Kevin Zegers as her boyfriend and Shawn Ashmore as the wise-ass best friend) go on a skiing trip. They spend most of the day on the bunny slope because of Emma and convince the lift operator to allow them one last trip up to the top of the hill before the resort closes for the week.

Unfortunately, due to a series of misunderstandings, the resort shuts down while they're still in the lift approximately 50 feet in the air. As a result, they are stuck in a lift, freezing to death and it turns out that there are wolves wondering around ready to feast on them should they decide to come down from the lift.

The movie plays less like a horror movie (there's only a few scenes of actual violence) and more like a "dread" movie. From the moment they get stuck in the lift, the movie quickly develops a sense of helplessness as the characters make various attempts to save themselves and find the situation getting worse with each attempt. Throughout the film, the characters remain plausible and react in ways that most people would, first joking, then angry before moving onto shock and despair. Because of the believability, it keeps the story interesting.

What is most impressive is that Adam Green chose to avoid the senseless violence that he used in Hatchet and kept the most violent acts off screen. During one particularly violent scene, we see just the very beginning of it (so we know what is about to happen) and then the camera focuses on the reactions of the helpless onlookers. By doing it this way, he allows the audience to imagine the horrific acts and lends the film a tension that wouldn't have existed had he centered the camera on the attack itself. It's an idea that I wish more directors would think of using.

What is most surprising to me is how little of a release this movie was given. I remember seeing an ad for it last year (and was looking forward to it because it looked original and had the possibility of being good) but, for reasons that my friend told me about but escape me now, it was only released on 106 screens and was given almost zero publicity. That is a shame because, like Trick 'R Treat (another film from a new director that is much better than you would expect), this is a film that could find an audience if given a chance. Hopefully it will on DVD. I know that I for one will have no problem giving it a recommendation and it makes me look forward to the next film that Adam Green wants to do (as long as it's not Hatchet III).

Grade: B+

Saw 3D -- Boredom in more multiple dimensions

I have a confession to make -- I have a love/hate relationship with the Saw series and own the first 6 movies. The reason for that is that I do admire what they set out to do. When the first movie came out, it attempted to be different from other mad slasher films. Unlike the standard mad slasher (where you have a killer slowly stalking horny teenagers), you have a killer who was different in that 1) he didn't actually kill anyone (theoretically, it was possible to survive his traps if you were willing to undergo a great degree of pain to do it); 2) he had a strong code of ethics (he hated murderers and his traps were designed to teach the victim a lesson). And, unlike most horror films, there was an actual plot and mystery to the first movie with a genuinely surprising ending. Thus, as ugly and violent as the movie was, I had to give the film credit for being different and original -- something not often found in horror films.

The rest of the series carried on with that trend. What became fascinating is that the plots became even more complex and the twists more surprising (Saw IV being the best example with a twist I genuinely didn't expect in terms of the chronology of events in the movie). Thus, the complicated nature of the story had to be admired. And, I admired the films for legitimately killing off characters but still finding a semi-plausible way to bring the actors back. Unfortunately, it was often undone by shoddy acting and the increasing requirement of the audience to accept that the killer had the wealth of Bill Gates to create such elaborate Rube Goldberg-esque traps (I wish they had, even once, in all 7 movies said that he was a millionaire to explain how he could afford to create the sets he did).

Which now leads us to what is, reportedly, the final film in the series (though the door is left open enough at the end to continue it if the grosses are high enough). Like previous films, the movie mostly consists of one guy walking through a series of traps involving people in his life (since this is the fourth film to try that storyline, it feels extremely redundant). In this case, the victim-du-jour is Bobby, a supposed survivor of one of Jigsaw's traps. He is on a speaking tour for his new book, detailing how he survived the trap and became a better person for it, when he is abducted and forced to undergo a series of trials.

Meanwhile, in the B-plot, Hoffman (the surviving heir to the Jigsaw legacy) is hunting down Jill, Jigsaw's ex-wife, in order to get revenge on her for her attack upon him at the end of the last movie. Out of the two storylines, this is the more interesting one and the one that I wished they had explored more. The better approach to the story would be to have the two of them attacking each other in a series of Jigsaw-style traps leading up to a showdown at the end. Unfortunately, Jill spends most of her time locked up and the showdown between them feels rushed.

As for the ending (the films became popular for their twist endings), I don't want to go too much into it for fear of spoiling it but it has the combined ability to be predictable and make no sense at the same time. Essentially, they have a character act in a way that makes no sense at all based on what we saw of them previously. They try to explain it in a series of rushed "flashbacks" but it still makes no sense for that character. Of all the twists in the film, this one was the lamest of all.

But, the film is not entirely flawed. There is one sequence at the beginning that was genuinely entertaining. In this sequence, the victims, instead of being locked up in a dank dungeon, are enclosed in a glass booth surrounded by people going to and from businesses. What is fascinating is not so much the trap (it's a standard "choose who dies"-style trap) but the reactions of the onlookers. Some try to help but most stand by gawking or snapping pictures on their cell phones. What is truly sad is that, if such a trap DID occur in real life, the reactions we see here are probably very realistic. It's a pity the rest of the film didn't have such a smart commentary on life. Then we would have had a smart ending to the series. Instead, we get one that is merely marking time until the end.

Grade: D+

Scott Pilgrim vs. the World: All the World's a Computer Game

For the past several years, movie studios have tried to adapt computer games into movies. Unfortunately, no matter how good or how much fun the original game was, the resulting movie (Tomb Raider, Super Mario Brothers, Streetfighter, Doom) bordered on awful. When the best movie is Mortal Kombat (dumb but actually fun in parts)*, this is definitely a sub-genre of movies that is best laid to rest.

Fortunately, director Edgar Wright (Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzz) finally figured out the right formula for doing it with Scott Pilgrim vs. the World. Scott Pilgrim isn't based on a video game (it's actually based on a series of graphic novels) but all of the visuals make it feel like a video game. In fact, the basic premise of the movie (Scott Pilgrim must defeat seven evil ex's in order to win the heart of his true love) is set up like a computer game with each battle become more and more difficult and with him receiving points based on how well he did (and the enemies dissolving into coins that he can collect afterwards).

This is one of the most creative movies you will see this year. There is no attempt at believability or plausibility in Scott Pilgrim. Scott (played with effortless deadpan by Michael Cera who has perfected the role of nerdish young hero) is thin and weak looking but suddenly becomes a bad-ass fighter pulling off moves that no human being (outside of those born on Krypton or sporting a bat symbol on their chest) could do. There's no explanation for how he can fight like that because Wright knows that we don't care. It's just accepted that he can and we leave it at that.

Likewise, the visual images provide some of the best humor in the movie. From the 8-bit Univeral logo graphics (with corresponding 8-bit version of it's theme) to the coins and points mentioned above, you see comic book descriptions appearing on the screen ("Ring", "Thud", etc) and some of the visual transitions make this an almost effortless transition from comic book to screen. After a short while, you truly do feel like you are watching a true video adaption of a graphic novel.

And the actors are smart enough to realize that this is not a deep story. All of them play it at the surface level and push the overacting just far enough to make it feel like a cartoon without going too far over. Particular credit has to be given to Brandon Routh (as an evil ex who has intense mental powers due to being a vegan) who displays a large amount of good humor. Between this and his brief appearance in Zack & Miri Make a Porno (playing a former stud who fell in love with a gay porn star), he has made me completely realize that Superman Returns was not in the least way his fault.

But, for all it's visual tricks and styles, this does not feel like a gimmicky movie. After spending years reading comic books and playing video games, it is easy to view the world in "me-centered" pop-cultural terms. The movie uses the visual tricks not as gimmicks but as a way of showing how Scott Pilgrim views himself and his world. He never quite realizes that he is, at heart, a rather callous person (his way of breaking up with a girl is to say "We should break up .... or whatever" with a shrug) who has caused pain in the lives of others. But, even though is callow and self-centered, he is still sweet and charming enough (thanks to Cera's performance) to make us root for him and his romance with the girl of his dreams, Ramona Flowers.

But, like any computer game, the movie ends with the words "Continue?" These are nice and charming enough characters, especially the supporting cast, that I would be more than happy to pop in more quarters for another few levels of this game.

Grade: A

Inception:Who knew that dreams could be so literal?

Dreams are a fantastical place. Within our dreams, we can create complete universes. I've had dreams where I just go from location to location, with no care as to how I got there. I have conversations that make little to no sense. There are no beginnings or endings. Sometimes they're scary, sometimes they're fun and hauntingly wonderful. Laws of physics have no meaning within there. But the most amazing thing at all is that, while we're dreaming, they appear to make complete and perfect sense. As Leonardo DiCaprio comments in Christopher Nolan's epic movie Inception, "It's only when we wake up that we realize how wierd it was."

When I first heard that Christopher Nolan, following up on his masterpiece The Dark Knight with a $200 million tale about dream thieves, I was eagerly looking forward. This is a man who took a simple revenge tale and turned it upside down (Memento) and then followed it with Robin Williams' creapiest performance paired off with a reminder of why Al Pacino is so respected (Insomnia). Finally he redefined what a superhero movie can be by digging deep into the psyche of man who is obsessed with his role in life (Batman Begins) and an examination of how terrifying true chaos can be (The Dark Knight). With that resume behind him, I had nothing less than the highest expectations and, with an incredible trailer that showed a lot yet revealed very little, I was expecting to be blown away.

And, at times, I was. The tale is mesmerizing at times. Nolan, cleverly, uses the artifice of a standard heist drama to stage some jaw dropping sequences. Leonardo DiCaprio plays Cobb, an "extractor" who has made a profitable living out of invading people's dreams and stealing secrets that they have buried deep inside. He is hired now to do the opposite task -- an inception -- where he plants an idea inside a person's subconcious. He has to go many levels deep because he has to convince the person that it's their idea or else it will be rejected.

Nolan spends the first half of the film laying the groundwork and explaining the rules of the dreamworld. This is necessary because this is a very complex setup. It also allows us to meet the members of DiCaprio's team -- Arthur (Joseph Gordon Levitt) who is Cobb's right-hand man, Eames (Tom Hardy) whose job is to impersonate people within the dream and Ariadne (Ellen Page) whose purpose is to construct the world of the dream. Because she is the new member of the team, she also acts as the audience's surrogate allowing the other character's to explain all of the rules and setup of dreams.

I won't go any further into the plot because it is best to experience it fresh and with as little foreknowledge as possible. But, unlike Knight and Day which revealed all of their best scenes in the trailer, Inception's trailer only gave you a taste of it's magnificence. The scene with the city folding onto itself? It's even better and grander in it's complete version. People fighting while floating in the hallway? Even more jaw dropping in the film. And the trailer gave no hint as to how complex the last half gets with dreams within dreams within dreams, all occurring simultaneously but at different speeds. The fact that Nolan managed to keep all of those balls in the air proves how masterful of a filmmaker he is.

But that's not to say there aren't disappointments in the film. In the first half, Nolan examines ideas such as creating complex mazes and reality on the fly that are never fully explored in the second half. And, also, with the exception of the hallway fight sequence, he never completely takes advantage of how fantastical dreams can get. One can only imagine what someone like Michel Gondry or David Lynch would have done with similar material.

But, that's not to say that I didn't love this movie. I was completely swept up into it and that is takes to Nolan and the cast. All of the cast members were smartly chosen for their roles. DiCaprio is proving more and more that he is one of the best actors of his generation. While Levitt and Page aren't really given much to do in terms of range, they make the most of it and you like their characters because of them. Also, Michael Caine (as Cobb's father) is now at the point of his career that all he has to do is show up and you admire whatever he has to say. It's a cameo performance but anytime spent with him is always enjoyable. I would talk about Marion Cotillard (as Cobb's wife, Mal) but to describe why I admired her performance would involve me having to talk more about the plot than I care to.

Is this the classic mind-bending tale that I hoped it would be? It falls a few steps short. Is it epic and engrossing? Most definately. Is Christopher Nolan now one of the best commercial story tellers working today? By a long shot.

So, how many days is until Batman 3 opens????????

Grade: A

Knight and Day: Who needs a plot when you have Tom Cruise?

After I left the theater seeing Knight and Day, I suddenly remembered one of the reasons I'm grateful I'm not a celebrity. Sure, they get paid millions of dollars, travel the world, live in gorgeous homes and hang out with beautiful women. But there is a price for that luxury. Every mistake you make, every stupid move you do, follows you around for the rest of your career and you get branded with the same vehemence by the public as if you slaughtered a group of orphans.

Tom Cruise is a perfect example. This is a man who is, for the most part a talented actor. He has played opposite some of cinema's best (Robert Duvall, Paul Newman, Meryl Streep, Jack Nicholson) and has held his own. He knows how to carry a film and make his characters likeable (Risky Business, Born on the Fourth of July, A Few Good Men) or unlikeable (Tropic Thunder, Collateral) as needed. But what has been the crime that has made the public turn against him? Jumping up and down on a couch on Oprah and arguing with Matt Lauer on The Today Show. It makes me grateful that my career isn't judged by rants I've gone on or idiotic behavior I may have done or else I would be looking for the nearest refrigerator box to live in.

Those thoughts occurred to me after the movie because Cruise is easily the best thing about the otherwise completely disposable Knight and Day. In the movie (which makes less and less sense the more I thought about it), he plays a former secret agent who runs into Cameron Diaz at an airport. After a flight where he literally kills everyone other than Diaz (who somehow doesn't think it's strange that only about 1/2 dozen are on a flight that she was almost bumped from because it was "full"), he forces Diaz to go on the run with him as they cross numerous contenents while in the possession of a battery that never runs out of juice (which is shoved into a toy knight, hence one half of the title).

The plot never makes any lick of sense and has the least convincing ending of any film I have ever seen. After seeing the movie, a friend of mine asked me "Those people who were pursuing Cruise at the end -- were they good or bad guys?" It says a lot where, after thinking about it, I honestly had no idea. It's one thing to be confused by a David Lynch movie (I basically expect to be sitting there having no clue why there's a backwards talking dwarf on the screen) but with a summer action blockbuster, the plot should be a tad clearer and easier than follow than a governmental housing code (and more interesting too).

That's not to say that the movie didn't have possibilities. Cruise, as I mentioned at the beginning is quite good. He plays the character as an agent who is so bored by the proceedings that he has time to be completely polite to everyone (including a fireman whom he has just shot in the leg). That dichotomy to the insane proceedings does provide for more than a few laughs. Unfortunately, most of the film's best jokes are in the trailer so there's no major reason to go see the movie.

In the end, the movie is completely forgettable and another sign that this is definately not the best of summers. But, unlike others, I don't lay the blame for this at Cruise's feet. The man tried. Hopefully, next time he'll be given a project that will make us forgive him for the infamous crime of being excited while on a talk show and for stating an opinion he strongly believes in. Those are harsh acts to overcome but someday he will find a way to repent for the crime of being human.

Grade: C-

Lost: Journey’s End

Possibly the most difficult episode for any series is the final episode. When a series has been on for years and the network decides to cancel the show (or the producer/director/star(s) decide they don't want the show to continue) and they give the series a chance to wrap things up, this becomes a major challenge for the show. They have to come up with an episode that feels larger than a normal episode, gives the series a sense of finality while still remembering what made the show so good in the first place. And, as fans, we set even higher standards for these episodes because this is the last thing that we will take from the show. We can forgive a mediocre show if it's in the middle of its run but a mediocre or bad final episode? That is going to leave a taste you will not soon get rid of.

Fortunately, some series have gotten the final episode right. Some such as Mary Tyler Moore Show and Newhart went on series highs (Newhart especially, saved their very best episode for the last one) and some, such as St. Elsewhere, The Prisoner (60s version) and Angel went on divisive notes that have fans debating their endings years later. Unfortunately, too many others (Roseanne, Moonlighting, X-Files and M*A*S*H) went out on notes that sacrificed self-importance for remembering what made the shows so popular in the first place. And, finally, there are some (Seinfeld) that just went out on a lazy note.

So where does Lost rank in this continuum of series? Lost, with its 6 years of mysteries and complex stories involving tropical polar bears, time-travelling islands, smoke monsters and cursed numbers, had a really tough hill to climb. They had so many unanswered questions (some by design, some by necessity due to actors leaving the show) that, even with 2 ½ hour running time, it doesn't seem like the show could end on a satisfactory note that will please everyone.

And this ending won't please everyone. There are reviews and comments complaining that the ending was simplistic and predictable (which is odd because I had not read a single theory that predicted this particular ending and most weren't even close to being right) and said that the show should have ended in some other fashion (though the critics fail to explain how they would have ended it). What these reviews all uniformly complain of is that the show left too many questions unanswered and too many threads dangling.

What the reviews fail to grasp though is that the show was never about the mysteries. We don't need to know exactly why polar bears were brought to the island or why Walt was special. The show was always about the characters' journeys. As the producers explained in the recap show airing immediately before it, the title of the series referred to not just them being "lost" geographically but the fact that they were "lost" spiritually and emotionally as well. Looking at the original flashbacks, none of the main characters were happy or emotionally balanced (Jack was a doctor with severe daddy issues, Hurley was convinced his life was cursed, Sawyer was obsessed with finding the man who ruined his life, etc.) As Jacob mentioned in the episode near the end, they were all chosen as candidates because they were alone off island and needed the island to make them whole.

And that's what the series did. Through the course of many adventures, the characters slowly found their balance in life. Sawyer eventually got past his obsession and Hurley realized that he controlled his fate, not some numbers. They were ready to move on with the next stage in their journey through life.

And that is what the final episode displayed brilliantly – the final stage of their journey. [NOTE: THE REMAINDER OF THIS REVIEW WILL BECOME VERY SPOILERISH. IF YOU HAVE NOT SEEN THE EPISODE YET, STOP HERE]. The episode broke this journey up into 2 parts – the island world and the sideways world. In the island world, we had a definite end to the season-long arc involving Man in Black. Terry O'Quinn (who should already be preparing his Emmy acceptance speech) was at his most menacing and evil. O'Quinn, better than most actors, knows the power of a glance and how much information it can convey. Watch the episode again and pay attention to his eyes and you can see pages of character exposition in terms of when the character is confused, angry or scared. He does it all subtly and never draws attention to it and that is what makes it all the more impressive.

The series managed to come up a resolution that felt epic and plausible at the same time. The fight scene between Jack and Locke was better paced and filmed than some major motion pictures. It was hard not to cheer when Locke was finally kicked off the side and sent to his death. While there was still another act to follow from that (preventing the island from being destroyed), it never felt tacked on and flowed naturally from the story leading up to it.

Likeways, all of the characters emotional arcs came to a satisfying end. Jack finally found a purpose in life by sacrificing it, Sawyer assumed the role of a leader and Ben finally received the respect that he long desired. Each of the characters ended up in a place that made sense for them. Some remained on the island and some left and could continue on with their lives, much more balanced then when they first arrived.

And then there was the sideways universe. All season, producers Damon Lindeloff and Carton Cuse had been stating that the flash sideways were not glimpses into an alternate universe and that we were to pay attention to the small details throughout. They had also been stating from the very beginning of the series that the island was not purgatory. They never said that they wouldn't bring purgatory into it, just that the island was not it.

And that is where their brilliant misdirection came into play. In a final act that became more powerful as the scene went on, we discovered that the sideways world was actually the next step in their journey after passing away. It wasn't purgatory per se because they weren't atoning for their sins (in fact, most of them were actually happier in the sideways world) but it was a chance for them to finally come to terms with their lives and be prepared for the next stage. Locke got to live a life with Helen, Jack got to have a son, Sawyer was respectable and Ben was respected. But, as we found out, these events were all a fiction. It was a way of easing them into their afterlifes. The task they had to achieve here was to "let go" of their previous lives and be ready to move on.

And that leads us to the beauty of the final scene in the church. The characters were paired up with the person they were meant to be with on a spiritual level (Sawyer with Juliet, Kate with Jack, Sayid with Shannon, etc) and all brought together as one final reunion with the people who had the greatest impact on their lives. Now, willing to let go, they were now ready to move on.

Once this revelation was given, we then are given the perfect ending to the series and one that I do honestly believe they had planned for 6 years now. Jack, dying from the fatal stab wound inflicted by Locke, rushes out to the same woods that he first landed in in the pilot episode. He then collapses in the exact same spot he first landed and is visited by Vincent (the first creature he saw in the episode) who lays down next to him. After watching the plane escape to safety and knowing that he didn't die for nothing (which Locke predicted he would), he laughs and the camera closes in on his eye. While the series begins with a closeup of his eye opening, it now ends with his shutting.

Poetry, resolution of emotional arcs, items to think over and epic battles – what more could you ask of.

I will mass Lost and it's ambitious story telling. Series like this are extremely rare and I am happy that it ended on such a strong note.

Grade: A+