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+

Lost & 24: The end of an era

Next week, we will be wishing farewell to 2 tv series -- Lost and 24. It is sad to see them leave the air because both, in their own ways, were inventive and imaginative stories. While neither was perfect and both had their own story-telling flaws, one can't deny the creativity that went into both shows.

24 first aired shortly after 9/11. In fact, the original pilot episode had to be reedited because the network was scared that seeing a plane explode on television just a few weeks after we saw the real thing might not be the best move. The show then managed to predict the future by showing us a black President (back when Obama was completely unheard of outside of Illinois) and laid the groundwork for a national debate on the use of torture to obtain information. Lost in all of this discussion was a well-done series that moved along at a pace that most movies would envy. Other shows (such as Heroes) attempted to end on cliff hangers but 24 was able to keep the audience hooked and wanting to see more.

This was a show that never should have worked. It was a gimmick show (each hour represented 1 hour of real time over the course of a 24-hour season) and the plot twists becaming increasingly ridiculous. You had to also accept many plot contrivances (such as a hostage crisis that lasts for 25 minutes in real time but is treated as if it lasted for hours or days) and the predictability of the season (each season there HAD to be a mole who would betray the heroes). The plots were so over the top that it made the James Bond saga look like a Ken Burns documentary.

But, in spite of its flaws, it worked. What carried it through the 9 years was Kiefer Sutherland. No matter how goofy the plot, his character of Jack Bauer (the stalwart and almost super human hero) was completely invested in the storyline. You bought into the story because HE bought into it. He was a true hero for the 21st century.

Likewise, Lost, has a storyline that started off mysterious and became increasingly convoluted as time went on. At one point, last season, one of the characters attempted to recite what generally occurred over the previous 4 years to his mother. At the end, his mother had the same look of confusion that anyone would have if you tried to summarize the storyline to an outside. Is there any real sensible way to bring together a time-travelling island, tropical polar bears, vengeance-seeking-god-like brothers AND an airplane crash in a way that makes any sort of sense? If there is, let me know, because I would love to use that summary to explain the show to others who haven't watched it.

But, I love the show--absolutly, unabashedly, love the show. I don't attempt to make complete sense of it. There are questions and mysteries that will never be explained and plot threads that will be forever left dangling. There are contradictions in the storyline that give the impression that the creators were making up the details as they went. The best way to appreciate this show, though, is to not focus on the details but on the big picture. When you do that, you will see that this is one of the most epic stories ever told. This is a show that dared to have 16 characters in the opening credits AND to tell a story that spanned several continents and a couple of thousand years. It was a thought-provoking show that incorporated philosophy, religion and science fiction all together into one giant package that was entertaining at the same time.

I think that is what I will miss about both series -- they dared to be different. When one of the biggest announcements of next year's shows is a spinoff of Law & Order and they claim that it's different because it's set in Los Angeles instead of New York (the title of the series -- Law & Order: LA. How long did it take for them to think that one up?), it's sad to see the end of 2 shows that pushed the norm and stuck to their guns for being different.

24 and Lost were not easy shows to follow. Both required constant viewing because of the serialized nature of the series. Both also expected the audience to accept something different or clever. But, if you went with it, you were rewarded with many hours of entertaining television. And I applaud and thank the networks for giving them a chance. It is sad to see them go but I will be happy that they existed.

Iron Man 2:Summer time has officially begun....

Two years ago, there was a major shock in the world of comic book movies. I'm not talking about The Dark Knight. That film, as good as it was (and I am on the side that views it as one of the best movies of the decade), it's quality and success were not that surprising (you had a successful director doing a sequel to well-respected movie with an extremely talented cast). Instead, I'm talking about Iron Man, which started out the summer season. Iron Man is the movie that Robert Downey Jr., as respected as he was, could be a legitimate movie star as well as a trained actor. It also took a character that was not that well known and made him immensely popular with director Jon Favreau using similar techniques as was used far less successfully in Daredevil.

As should be expected, because of its success, we have Iron Man 2, which continues the story and, like most sequels, does it bigger and more expensively. Actually, as part of an ultra-ambitious project, Iron Man 2 is actually the next chapter in a much larger series of films ultimately leading up to The Avengers which will feature the actors and characters from Iron Man, The Incredible Hulk as well as the upcoming movies Thor and Captain America.

This movie, though, focuses further on on Tony Stark who, at the end of the last movie, announced to the world that he was Iron Man. The movie explores the ramifications of that decision. Because his suit is so powerful, the government wants it turned over to them so that they can build an army out of it. Also opposing him is a weapons manufacturer, Justin Hammer (Sam Rockwell) who enlists the services of a Russian physicist harboring an old family grudge (Mickey Roarke). Add to that the fact that he is allowing fame go to his head and his company suffers so he makes his right-hand girl, Pepper Potts the new CEO. In addition, he is beginning to realize that the suit which makes him so powerful is slowly poisoning his blood stream.

As you could guess, this is an extremely crowded movie. Like Batman Returns (which also featured multiple villains and numerous storylines), this movie is so busy creating the next plot point, there is less time for character development. As a result, some of the characters such as Stark's best friend, Rhodey (Don Cheadle, taking over for Terrence Howard from the first movie), is given too little screen time. Also, some of the plot points, such as Scarlett Johanson as a new office worker seem awfully rushed and incomplete. It's almost as if they were trying to cram 6 hours worth of movies into just 2 hours.

Also, Favreau relies a little heavily on the special effects for the action scenes. Near the end, the movie becomes a battle between the CGI effects and it's nowhere as interesting as some of the earlier scenes where you could see the actors and follow exactly what was going on.

What is probably the biggest flaw with the movie is that, at no time, do you feel that Iron Man is in danger. In films like Superman 2, Spiderman 2 and The Dark Knight, the audience truly wondered how the hero was going to defeat the villain. Deep down, you knew the hero would win but it was unclear how. With Iron Man 2, there is no real mystery to that. The ending is fairly clear and it never really looks like Stark is all that worried about defeating Rockwell and Roarke. Thus, there's little suspence to the action scenes and the big set pieces come off as rather hollow.

What does save the movie though and makes it worth watching are the actors. Robert Downey Jr. is an absolute delight as Stark. He makes good use of his gift for tossing off one-liners and lightens up most of his scenes. In fact, the movie is at its best when it's dealing with the light comedy. You can tell Jon Favreau is much more comfortable during these bits and they feel far more natural than the more action-oriented scenes.

As a note for those who do go see it: stay through the closing credits. Afterwards, there's a quick scene previewing what will be the next chapter in this saga.

Grade: C+

Chess:Sometimes it's the simple things that count

Last Saturday evening, I attended a performance of the Tim Rice musical Chess at the 14th Street Theater in Cleveland. It was performed by students attending Baldwin-Wallace University and, much to my surprise, they managed to outclass the professionals who were performing down the street at Playhouse Square. What they lacked in polish and experience they more than made up for in energy and style.

Chess is a musical that tells the story of 2 World Chess Championship matches, the first in Merano and the second in Bangcock. Involved in the matches are the American champion, Freddy who is all swagger and bravado and his Russian opponent Anatoly who mixes his intelligence with deep feelings of love. The games become complex when Anatoly falls in love with Freddy's assistant, Florence, who allows herself to be manipulated by the death of her father. All three are moved around like pieces on a chess board by their handlers and it becomes clear that they are merely pawns in a giant political game.

The 14th Street Theater can be graciously termed as "intimate" and it's obvious from the design (seats at small tables rather than in rows, the audience almost dangerously close to the stage) that it was made more for stand up comedy rather than theatrical performances. Thus, putting on an elaborate show would be problematic at best. Rather than being hampered by this, the director, Victoria Bussert, took advantage and made the show as simple as possible. The stage consists of one set, a black and white checker-boarded design and a couple of chairs for cast members to sit on. No back drops are used and it is left to the audience's imagination to paint in what is going on.

The costumes and casting are likewise are brilliantly simple. All of the Americans (with the exception of Florence) are in white and the Russians are in black. The chorus is also equally divided into the black/white contrast with only costume change occurring in the show and that is done to represent a change in a character's role in the story. By keeping things so simple, it allows the audience to become even more caught up in the story and forces us to pay more attention. It also allows for more beautifully surreal images such as the chorus members dancing out chess moves during the tournaments. As a result, the show at times went from simple to haunting almost effortlessly.

As for the cast, they were all well chosen. I would list the actors but the program was confusing in that it listed both "American" and "Russian" casts, 2 different casts for the same roles (such as 2 actors for the roles of Freddy). No explanation of what this was or which cast the audience was seeing that night. As a result, all I can say is that Freddy was performed with an appropriate amount of swagger and egotism with the actor using his height to loom over actors in an arrogant manner that masked his self-pity. The true scene stealer, though, was Anatoly who brought down the house with "Anthem" which closed out Act 1. He made the audience sympathize with his dillemas and realize that his choices, while tough, were made in the only manner possible.

The major flaw in the production would have to lay with the sound. Due to the acoustics in the theater, the orchestra often overwhelmed the singers. While that is forgiveable, what was bad was that few of the actors (including some of the leads) weren't miked to give them a chance at being heard. Thus, some of the lyrics were muffled and made it difficult to follow at times.

But, in the end, it was simplicity and energy that won out. It was obvious that everyone involved loved what they were doing and gave it all they had. I will take that anyday over a professional actor sleep walking his way through a performance. It might not be as polished but it was definately a lot more fun.

“Remakes”, “Reimaginings”, “Reboots”: Everything Old is New Again

Tomorrow, a new version of Wes Craven's horror classic A Nightmare on Elm Street is being released. From the plot synopsis, it appears to follows the original Nightmare exactly but with a new actor (Jackie Earl Haley from The Watchmen, Little Children and Shutter Island) taking over Robert Englund's role as Freddie Krueger. I was discussing the film with a friend and a question came up with how I felt about remakes.

While I would love to give a simple, kneejerk answer of "they stink. It's just Hollywood being lazy, unimaginative and greedy" (and that is no doubt true in many cases), I can't use that as a blanket statement. There are too many remakes that were worthy of being done and more than justified their existence:

• The Fly – the first and biggest example that I think when I think of worthy remakes. The original was a cheesy sci-fi film that is worthy of being ridiculed. The remake, on the other hand, was dark, scary, intentionally funny and featured Jeff Goldblum in Academy Award-nominated performance. The ending of the film is heartbreaking and proves the number 1 rule of worthy remakes – bring something new to the table.
  
• The Fugitive – One of Harrison Ford's best action movies that is a prime example of how to pace a chase movie (the plot is concisely taken care of before the opening credits are even done) that was a worthy nomination for Best Picture and proved a great showcase both for Ford and Best Supporting Actor Tommy Lee Jones. The movie does so many things right (beginning with the fact that you are rooting for both of the actors even though they are at odds with each other) that to write it off as a "cheap remake" of the 1960s tv series would be to do this movie a great disservice.
  
• Batman Begins – Granted, almost no one will blame Christopher Nolan for choosing to go back to the beginning of Batman rather than continue from the abomination that is Batman & Robin (a film that almost completely derailed a franchise). Thus, in this case, "rebooting" the franchise turned out to be a brilliant decision because it allowed Nolan to start fresh and tell the story in his fashion.
  
• Star Trek – This will remain the perfect example of how to do a reboot that satisfies fans of the original while allowing you to start new. Unlike Batman Begins, Abrams had the unenviable job of having to do a prequel that didn't mess with the continuity of the original series (and Star Trek fans would have been rabid if there were). His solution was brilliant – create an alternate universe. This way, he can tell whatever story he wants and there is no continuity to worry about. In hindsight, it's obvious but brilliant nonetheless.
  

What the above movies have in common is that the film makers were less concerned with simply riding on the coat tails of the original source material and were more interested in telling a new story in an interesting way. In those cases, the fact that it's not "original" is trivial because the story or the style of storytelling is so fresh that it is more than forgivable. In too many cases, though, a remake is so faithful to the original and there is absolutely nothing new about it that you wonder if it would just have been easier to clean up the original print and rerelease that. Possibly the worst example of this is Gus Van Sant's Psycho. The remake is, literally, a shot-for-shot remake of the Alfred Hitchcock classic, complete with the same music, same dialogue and same camera angles. The only difference is that there are different actors in the roles and the remake is in color while the original is in black and white. To call that "fresh" is a joke at best and makes you wonder why the studio even wasted the time and talents of Van Sant and actors like Vince Vaughn, Julianne Moore, Viggo Mortensen and William H. Macy among others.

Thus, will Nightmare on Elm Street be a worthy remake like The Fly or will it ring hollow and unnecessary like Psycho? I am a fan of the original film (despite its low budget and laughable acting, there are scenes that truly feel like they have come from a nightmare) and am cynical at best. But, I will go see it and, hopefully, will be proven wrong. Hopefully, director Samuel Bayer will find a new way to haunt our dreams and not make me say "Now, where the original DVD again?"

Explosions, Gun Fights, Sexy Women & a Nonsensical Plot -- Now THAT'S a Movie!!

I love steak. I love it medium with onions and mushrooms and some mashed potatoes and gravy on the side. Combine that with a good salad covered in French dressing and you have yourself a meal.

Other times, I enjoy getting a Big Mac with french fries, apple pie and a chocolate shake? Is it good for me? Not even remotely close. But it's quick, it's cheap and it tastes good. And, at the moment, that's all that matters.

The same goes for movies. I've got 600+ DVDs and counting in my collection. I've got ones that I will regard as classics (Godfather, Pulp Fiction, 12 Angry Men, Princess Bride, Raiders of the Lost Ark) but occassionally I'm in the mood for a movie that is completely nonsensical but moves fast and never slows down for trivial items like plot or characterization.

The Losers more than fits that bill. Based on a comic book (and sounding more than a bit like The A-Team which is also coming out this summer), a group of Army experts are set up in a mission and presumed dead. Fortunately they didn't die but they vow revenge upon the insanely evil mastermind Max (Jason Patric displaying more personality than he has in any role previously) who has moved on from them and moved onto purchasing eco-friendly terrorist weapons (making this an oddly appropriate movie to be released on Earth Day).

The team consists of the leader Clay (Jeffrey Dean Morgan, The Watchmen), tech expert and wise-ass (Chris Evans, Fantastic Four and the upcoming Captain America), weapons expert Roque (Idris Elba, The Office), sharpshooter Cougar (Oscar Jaenada) and Pooch (Columbus Short). The group is funded by and assisted by the misterious Aisha (Zoe Saldana, Avatar and Star Trek). The movie basically is a collection of action set pieces including a short but hilarious breaking into a building by Jensen (while the punchline is revealed in the trailer, the build up is even better).

Director Sylvain White (Stomp the Yard) moves the movie along at a crisp pace. Realizing that the plot makes less than zero sense (after sitting through it, I'm STILL trying to figure it out and can't), he wisely does a series of quick cuts reminiscent of Michael Bay but ably keeps the movie at a comic book level. Unlike the more ambitious but ultimately disappointing Kick Ass, The Losers maintains it's tone throughout the entire film.

Is this film good in the classical sense of the word (subtety, complexity, growth of characters, etc)? Not even close. But, sometimes you don't want "good". Sometimes all you want is the Big Mac and this will more than satisfy your hunger.

Grade: B-

A huge pet peeve of mine (talkers in a theater)....

This afternoon, I went to see August:Osage County up at Playhouse Square in Downtown Cleveland (part of the Broadway series that I'm a season subscriber to). The play was a 3 1/2 hour serious melodrama done in the style of Tennessee Williams and Eugene O'Neil and, while slow at the beginning, quickly picked up steam as the play went along and ended on a really powerful note.

This posting isn't about the play however. It's about the group of women who were sitting 2 rows back of me in the theater. Throughout the entire play, they wouldn't stop talking. They would make comments to each other and to themselves almost nonstop. And, we're not talking quiet whisperings, we're talking almost normal volume conversations. And the comments they made were beyond inane. For example, at one point a character mentions that he's been married 38 years so, of course, the genius in the group said to her friend "38 years, huh?". And the dialogue remained this scintilating and at the same relative volume. If the action or dialogue on the stage got louder, so did the conversation in the group. It went beyond distracting into the aggravatingly annoying.

I would have said something to them along the lines of "some of us paid to hear the actors on stage, not you" but I was convinced by my mother and sister to not say anything and just "deal with it" (they were probably afraid that I would be less than tactful and it would, no doubt, result in ME being asked to leave the theater). Thus, I spent the bulk of 3 1/2 hours simmering and wishing that they would FINALLY shut up.

What annoys me is that this is a problem that is more and more prevalent. I know it's been a problem in movie theaters for years but, until now, I've been happy to avoid encountering it in a live theater production. At least in that situation, the patrons realize that this is not their home where they can make comments throughout and that it is rude to the other guests who paid some fairly expensive prices to hear something that can only be done once (at least with a movie, I can always watch it again later to catch dialogue or a performance that I might have missed -- with live theater, that isn't possible). But today proved to me that society is becoming less and less civil.

As further evidence of lack of civility, at least 3 times in the play I heard someone's cell phone go off. I have yet to figure out why people can't learn to switch the phone to vibrate. I do that as a matter of course but there is still a segment of the population who have to master this complex feat. Because of that, during some intense sequence in the play, I'm suddenly hear a phone going off. It's distracting and too easily takes us out of the play.

On behalf of all of us who like to actually hear the actors and get lost is a story that we paid money to watch, I beg now of the segment that feels a need to talk or let their phones ring. I beg that you either respect our rights to enjoy the play withour constant commentary. Either that of just not come and restrict yourself to watching stuff on a TV set where your blather will only annoy your family members.

They might have to put up -- I don't. Please respect that fact