Reviewing Life

Brief (I promise!) thoughts before the finale

2010-05-22T07:22:00.003-05:00

No long, drawn out thoughts this week. Just a few things to keep in mind as we watch Lost's last. I may end up writing a show summary in the future, but it won't be for a while.

The Good:
Ben is (apparently) a bad guy again, or at least not a very good guy. This is awesome, as bad, manipulative Ben > good, wussy Ben.

Besides the whole "Kate, you're good to go" deal, the speech by Jacob was good, and I think it helps frame the character side of the show as well as the finale.

We're gearing up for a decent flashsideways ending, and the fan theory that it takes place after the island blows up is gaining more credence now that we know Widmore's plans for Desmond.

Jack has turned into probably the second best redemption story on the island (after Charlie), but will he keep his guardianship for long? Is Hurley's "I'm just glad it's not me," an ironic hint at the island's future, or could he be tapped to be the Richard to Jack's Jacob?

The Bad:
The whole "Kate, I crossed you off because you became a mom" thing was a letdown, but there still is perhaps a possibility that she was never the sixth candidate. Maybe Jacob has learned to let go of his lists.

Is Frank dead? If he is, the other characters don't seem to care very much. Notice how all of their mournings/questions are related only to Sun, Jin and Sayid. Granted, the castaways didn't meet our wisecracking pilot until three years into the show, but in Island time, that was about three and a half months.

I think that when all is said and done, one of the biggest flaws with season six (and, really, season five) on the characterization side of things is the lack of Desmond's on-island appearances. Let's hope that he's in the finale a lot, and let's hope that he's a lot less wonky and a lot more pining-for-Penny.

The Neutral:
Where is Richard? He can't be dead, can he? Other people/groups to keep locations in mind for: the rest of Widmore's people, Desmond, Claire.

How many people will die? Prior to Ilana's kaboom, I predicted that Ilana, Richard, Claire, Sayid, Sawyer and Miles would all be biting the bullet. I'm not so sure about all of them now, but I'm still holding out for at least a couple more.

Still want some answers? While you're looking online for the encyclopedia of unanswered question lists, throw the one I wrote at the beginning of the season into the mix. By my estimation, numbers six and seven are accounted for, along with most of one, part of two and ten, and maybe nine (I'm still holding out for a better answer on this one). Will we get any more?

It's been fun, Lost fans. See ya 'round the Internets.

Understanding "Across the Sea"

2010-05-18T19:16:00.002-05:00

I was disappointed. Very disappointed.

Being the Lost junkie that I am, I had been anticipating last week’s episode, “Across the Sea,” for weeks, ever since I had heard that it was going to be different, weird, and, most intriguingly, not featuring any of the series regulars. I became a bit more skeptical as the season progressed with few answers being given (besides “Ab Aeterno” plus a few other unsatisfying answers like the whispers and Jack’s dad), but I was still looking forward to what I hoped would be a groundbreaking episode of the show.

What I got was a poorly conceived, poorly acted, trite and unnecessary hour thrown into Lost’s final moments – the moments when the show needs most of all to be on its A game. Many of the answers we received were hokey or not explained well, many were things we never needed answers to and a few even created inconsistencies.

Worst of all, however, was the episode’s absolutely terrible ability to stand by itself. I’ve read tons and tons of analysis about this episode, as I do after every episode, and I’ve thought a lot about it myself, again, same as every time; the difference with this episode is that this continued analysis was not optional – in order to make heads or tails of the show’s central concepts, a long puzzling needed to take place.

I’m not saying I want Damon Lindelof and Carlton Cuse to walk me through everything. I don’t, and they usually wouldn’t oblige me even if I wanted them to (the out of place flashback to the Adam and Eve skeletons notwithstanding). But one of their mantras has always been “The show should stand on its own.” I have never felt like it did that less than last Tuesday.

Nevertheless, I have puzzled, and these scrawlings are my observations. As usual, I will try to keep them short, and, as usual, I will probably fail. However, if you’re still trying to get a bead on what exactly “Across the Sea” was all about, read on. Maybe you and I can figure this one out together.

Did we need this?
Before the episode came out, I was excited for what Lost fanboys usually refer to as a “mythological download,” but after it was over I didn’t really feel like I needed to know what we found out. Essentially, the central Jacob/Man in Black myth was enough for me; the “cork in the bottle” analogy essentially explained to me everything I needed to know about the conflict of these two ageless titans: Jacob is a good guy trying to keep the embodiment of evil from destroying earth.

Granted, this is just my opinion, but for those of you who wanted more, what difference did these revelations make to you? OK, you found out how Jacob became the guardian. We now don’t know how Mother became a guardian, or how the whole guardian thing got started in the first place.

We now know that Jacob and MIB were brothers, separated by some weird longing to leave the island. I suppose this was intended to give their struggle more emotional impact, and maybe it would have if the child actors weren’t so typical child actor and if the adult versions of these two characters weren’t forced to wade through such mucky dialogue. This, too, raises more questions: how did the other islanders get there, for example? Why and how did MIB’s real mom appear as a ghost (side note: has anyone else noticed how lazy the writers are getting with the whole ghost conceit?)?

The biggest question raised because of the twins’ backstory, however, is why it was and is so bad that the Man in Black wanted off the island. My guess is that, at that time, it either wasn’t (in which case Mother was delusional or looking for her replacement or both), or it had something to do with the light at the island’s core (don’t worry, I’ll be getting to that).

This raises the even more important question of why it’s bad that Smokey is let off now. I mean, he’s obviously one bad dude, ready and willing to wipe out anyone who gets in his way, but what would actually happen if he gets off the island? Would he really wipe out existence, or would he simply say, “Hmm, this is nice. I don’t know what Mom was so worried about”? This raises some fundamental questions about what the smoke monster is, which hopefully will be answered in the final three and a half hours. At the rate the show is letting the ends dangle, however, I’m not so sure. If it isn’t answered, it calls into question the entire purpose of, well, really the entire show. There are a lot of ways I would not be comfortable with the series ending; one of them would be a resolution in which Smokey is just some dude who wants to get off the island. It seems a paltry thing to lose lives over.

Screw the cave. Seriously, screw that thing.
This was, again, something I didn’t need to know. The island is special, it has seemingly magic or electromagnetic properties, whatever. This is not something in and of itself that needs to be explained, it is just an explanation given for why the island does crazy stuff, similar to when a Star Trek ship starts to shake and Scotty calls Kirk and says, “Captain! The [jargon] is [jargoning] with the [jargonajigger]!” We don’t need to know what the jargon is. We just need to know that Khan is going to get messed up.

Again, even if you disagree, this is unquestionably one of the worst explanations in the history of explaining things. When Mother finally settles on a definition of the light in the cave, she says this:

“Life, death, rebirth; it’s the source, the heart of the island.”

OK, first of all, Alison Janey, go back to playing Juno’s mom. It suits you a lot better. Second of all, this is a definition so vague, so ill-defined, that it makes Obi-Wan Kenobi’s explanation of the Force sound like a doctoral thesis.

Based on that piece of dialogue and a few other tidbits, I think it’s safe to say that the cave contains some sort of Force-like substance, a Gaia sort of energy, a lifeforce that turns the wheel of the world. Thanks for that, guys, I guess. I don’t really know what that has to do with anything that has happened on the show up til now, other than the creation of the smoke monster and the donkey wheel.

And, now that we mention it, how about those two things? This is yet another case where the vague definitions of what the light actually is comes into play. This unnecessary revelation brings up the question of why light + MIB = smoke monster, and the much more annoying question of how and why MIB and his buddies thought the light could send them off the island. Obviously, none of them had ever been down there, or several smoke monsters would be roaming around. When Mother asked MIB about his logic, he simply responded with a petulant “Because I’m special!” – an obvious and unnecessary allusion to Locke when we actually wanted a real answer.

Again, to make sense of this, I will make an educated guess and say that some prior experiences with small slices of light caused the men to believe this, but we’ll likely never know.

A missed opportunity
Granted, I did say this was an episode that we didn’t need, and I stand by that, but yet another query comes to mind: if you, Damon and Carlton, decided that the series needed this ancient backstory, why didn’t you spend the time answering questions that have come up on the show rather than giving us this tired sibling rivalry crap?

I’ll give you the Adam and Eve tie up. It was nice of you to clear that up, even though the season one flashback was a bit much. But the questions about Jacob’s origin that have loomed the largest over the show itself remain unanswered. What’s up with the cabin? The ash? Probably most notably absent from the episode, what’s going on with all of the Egyptian imagery? I know you said you didn’t want to show the construction of the four toed statue, and that’s fine, but couldn’t you at least explain it at all? What about the hieroglyphics at the end of the hatch countdown? The only recognition of these elements was the Senet game MIB finds on the beach, and it merely served to jog our memories of past issues not yet accounted for.

Finally, the audacity
All right, guys (yes, this is still directed at Lindelof and Cuse), I understand it’s your show, but really? Really? Are you going to throw such condescending nonsense as “Every question I ask will only lead to another question” in our faces at this stage of the game?

I know you have said from the beginning that Lost is primarily about the characters, but your marketing, and indeed the way you have framed the entire show, tells anyone with half a brain that, in addition to the characters, the show is also about something else. It’s about polar bears and smoke monsters. It’s about teleporting children and hatches with old videos in them and a pile of notebooks heaped in the jungle.

I’ve said it so many times before, but I’ll say it again: Lost is a show that comes, inherently, with a promise of payoff – a guarantee that, yes, we’re going to explain this to you. To not give us that payoff is nothing less than profoundly disrespectful, and to speak so triflingly in both the show and interviews of fans who want this isn’t fair. We don’t need to know all the answers. We just need to know enough so that when (if) we rewatch the show, we can look at the narrative as a whole and say, “Ohhhh, so that’s what that means!” You have not given us this.

Before season six began, I wrote a list of Lost’s best and worst episodes of all time, including in the introduction to the “best” list an innocuous sentence: “Hopefully Season Six can carve out a few places here, too.” Thus, far, with two episodes to go, it has carved out one spot: the excellent Richard-centric “Ab Aeterno.”

The rest of the season has been hit and miss, with every good episode (“Dr. Linus”) seemingly balanced out by a bad one (“What Kate Does”). With this outing, however, I think we can notch a new entry in the “worst” column.

It’s hard to make 121 ½ hours of television. I don’t contest that. But this hour could have – should have – been better.

Lost Notes, part one million

2010-04-13T22:52:00.003-05:00

I'm sorry that my blog has disintegrated (for the time being) into a series of nigh incomprehensible musings about an ABC science fiction show. I'm not apologizing to you, as if you somehow expected grander things out of me. I'm just sorry. However, I must write, so here we are.

As usual, don't read this until you are caught up to the current episode, which in this case is "Everybody Loves Hugo." Also if you don't feel like reading all of this, scroll down to the bottom where I discuss the contest.

Thoughts on yesterday's episode:
I enjoyed it. Quite a bit, actually. Throughout the show, the writers have made fleeting, futile efforts at convincing us that Hurley deeply matters, plotwise, to the show. While I would be the first to recognize his value as a character, as a member of a rich ensemble, I was never quite convinced by any arguments that his role in the Island's mythology was vital.

Last night, I believed for the first time. There really isn't that much else to say. The writers finally managed to convincingly elevate our fat friend to "mover and shaker" status, and I for one hope he stays there. I still don't think he's going to be the Last Candidate Standing, as it were, but he certainly jumped up through the ranks in this episode.

---

While I'm sure she'll pop up in a flashsideways or two, I'm assuming this will be the general end of questions about Libby. The only question I ever had about her, which I believe was the main question most fans had about her, was simply what was she doing in the mental hospital. It seems that "Everybody Loves Hugo" didn't really answer that question so much as remove. In other words, the reason Libby was in the mental hospital was because she was mentally ill.

As I've previously stated, Libby is not that big of a deal to me. However, the turning of her central mystery into a nonissue is rather disrespectful of the writers. It's almost as if a parent who once promised three scoops of Baskin Robbins got so tired of his child asking about that he finally slammed down the newspaper, said "Fine!" in a grumbly sort of way, and went to and purchased a McDonald's vanilla cone for the kid.

In essence, they essentially just said, "She was there because she was there," making her situation no different from when we see Sawyer in background of the Australian police station while Boone is there. The difference, however, is that the camera didn't do a slow turnaround shot while an orchestra played Cliffhanger Music written by an Oscar winner. It's dumb that they did it this way, but I have bigger fish to fry.

---

The answer to what the whispers are was not one of the show's best reveals, but it was nice to see that they hadn't forgotten about them. Also, I love Michael, so that was nice, too.

However, I have a nagging question about those whispers that I really, really hope gets answered: How does that explain Walt?

In "Abandoned," Shannon hears whispers right before getting shot in the guy by Ana Lucia. Right before the bullet bites her, however, she sees a tripped out, dripping wet, backwards-talking Walt. Walt was not dead at this time, nor is he now, but it seems that his strange appearance was related to the whispers. How does this line up?

---

Two thoughts on Desmond:
A). He is clearly not dead, and I found it almost insulting how half-heartedly they tried to convey that he might be.
B). I'm 99 percent certain he ran over Locke in the flashsideways to induce some sort of emotional trauma that will result in a flood of memories.

---

For those who followed my Lost character death game on Facebook, I was right about Ilana shuffling off the mortal coil -- or, in this case, shattering said coil into tiny pieces. I was surprised, though, that she nipped off so soon. I was certain she would get more explanation, perhaps even her own episode. As it is, I'm guessing that some sort of Jacob flashback will still explain a little more about her.

---

OK, that's it for the episode specific stuff. Here are three other thoughts.

The timeline of the flashsideways has really bothered me because I am a nerd who is actually concerned about constructing a semi-workable theory of how time travel works in the Lost universe. The thing that was bothering me, however, is something that most people probably don't care about or even notice. The thing in question is the matter of when the sideways universe began.

Presumably, the reality split from regular Lost continuity when Jughead was blown up. However, if that's the case, whatever way Widmore found out about the sideways universe (let's assume he knows little else except that there's some kind of something that is out of whack and has to do with electromagnetism) should have been able to be discovered for 34 years. Why did someone just figure it out now?

One can't even assume that Widmore knew about such events for a long time and just chose to act now, because the last time he saw Desmond before the kidnapping, he told him to run away and hide. Clearly, something changed his mind in a big way. However, it simply makes no sense that the flashsideways universe would suddenly appear in 2007, because the event that caused it happened in 1974. Hence, my theory.

The Island binds each group of people who come to it together in time. They can all interact with other members of other groups, but when it comes their own personal chronologies, the Island always makes sure it matches up. The Others are their own thing, the Dharma folks are their own thing, and the freighter folk and survivors make up their own little group. That's why the survivors left on the Island at the beginning of Season Five jumped through time while the Others didn't.

To address more coincidental occurrences, that's why the returning Kate, Jack, Hurley and Sayid jumped back in time to exactly the time period in which they would have aged as much as Sawyer and Co. That's also If you watch, through all the time travel that has occurred, none of the freighter people or the survivors (or, nonsensically, Juliet), ever get any older than any of the other ones. If Jack was two months older than Kate at the beginning of the show, he is two months older than her now.

How does that explain the flashsideways? Simple. While the actual event that caused the flashsideways happened in 1974, it was caused by people from the survivor/freighter group, all of whom are bound together in time. Thus, the event took effect in their collective present, which was the day in 2007 when Jack and Co. came back to the future (yuk, yuk, yuk).

Clear as mud? Sure, and it doesn't explain Juliet or why Sun stayed in the present while her buddies went back to 1974. But it's the best I've got.

---

Where are Walt, Christian and Aaron? Seriously, this is making me angry. These are some serious loose ends, and they need to be resolved.

---

Why do Miles and Frank still exist? As much as I love them, I'm confused as to what purpose they're serving on the show right now. Frank has barely said or done anything at all this year, and it's been several episodes since Miles has been called upon for any use. What are they there for?

That's all I've got for today folks, except an invitation to get in on my previous Lost Facebook challenge. Granted, you're coming in a week late, so you'll lose one point by not being able to guess the fate of Ilana, but you've still got a legitimate shot at some predictive bragging rights. The rules are below, taken from my Facebook note on the subject.

Game One: The Character Death Game

We all know about Lost's predilection for offing its main characters, and one of the most surprising things about this singularly odd final season is that there are only five weeks left until the last hurrah, and all of the main characters (with the possible exception of Sayid? (EDIT: and now, Ilana)) are fully intact.

We know this isn't going to last. The writers have said so, and even if they had said the opposite we would, like psychic and biological polygraphs, know immediately that they were lying. Your first mission, should you choose to accept it, is to either post down below or send me a message with your predictions, simply "alive" or "dead," for the following 14 main cast members (astute readers will note that I'm leaving out unLocke for the moment. If I should not do so, let me know):

Desmond
Ilana XXXXXXXX
Richard
Claire
Sayid
Kate
Sawyer
Jack
Jin
Ben
Hurley
Sun
Miles
Frank

Game Two: The Candidate Game, Part One

One of the central mysteries of this season is who will become "the next Jacob" and take over the role of The Island's eternal and mysterious babysitter. Why someone would WANT such a job is probably one of those mysteries that just won't get answered.

Anyway, there are six people - or, as the show calls them, candidates - up for the job. Currently, the identities of five of them are (more or less) known. Your second job is to write below or to me which of these six options will, in the end, become Jacob's replacement. Please note that I'm intentionally using the names as they appear on the cave wall, just in case the writers end up surprising us and telling us that Christian, not Jack, is a candidate (or some other such manipulation), no matter how far fetched such an idea might be.

Shephard
Ford
Reyes
Jarrah
Kwon
An unknown, sixth candidate

Game Three: The Candidate Game, Part Two

This one is the one most open for ideas, and I would encourage discussion below. Illana mentioned that there are six candidates, but, as shown above, only five of them are (literally) carved in stone. Who is the final candidate, and why do you think so? Could it be Miles, who has somehow stayed alive long after the show has last found use for him? Could it be Lapidus, who was supposed to be on 815 that day? Could it be Desmond, who has found himself once again in the middle of circumstances he can't even begin to understand? Or could it be some other unnamed person, yet to factor prominently into the mix?

Let's discuss.

Lost: The Halfway Point

2010-03-29T17:12:00.009-05:00

It came just in time.

That's how I, and, I think, a lot of other loyal Lost fans felt about "Ab Aeterno," the ninth episode of Lost's final season. Being the ninth hour of the 18 hour-long season, the episode also served as a landmark of sorts, a suitable hook to keep us interested and (yet again) an inherent promise of more answers to come.

That such a hook was needed is nearly unquestionable. For all but the most blindly loyal Lost fans, this season has been, well, not really disappointing, but perhaps underwhelming, at the very least not what ABC has been cracking it up to be. The flashsideways have been met with mixed reviews, the acting retains some of its season six hamminess and, while the plot has moved forward, it has done so in ways that are perhaps too subtle for the stakes. That isn't to say there haven't been a good many bright spots this year (more on those later), but the excitement factor was certainly low for a show promising us high octane thrills and cerebral revelations.

And, speaking of that, it was beginning to look like those revelations would never come. For a season supposedly chock full of answers, the only real reveal we had received was that unLocke is the smoke monster, and we figured that out in the first episode of the year. I believe I shared the emotions of many a fan when I began to wonder if the writers were going to hold on us.

Then came "Ab Aeterno," the most dramatically and mythologically satisfying episode of the season (and, on the mythological side, of the entire show). Nestor Carbonell's Richard is terrific, and boom, boom, boom, we clear up the mystery of Alpert, the Black Rock, what the smoke monster really is, the broken statue and even the purpose of the island itself.

The most encouraging thing about the episode was that it didn't feel contrived. With so much to answer in so little time, the writers could easily have defaulted into expository mode, clearing up vast swaths of myth with dense explanations by those in the know. Instead, they took the time to provide one of the series' better crafted narratives, allowing you to really feel for Richard while at the same time thinking, "Oh, so that's how it happened!"

And, complaints aside and "Ab Aeterno's" top dog status notwithstanding, there have been other good moments this year. "Lighthouse" and "Dr. Linus" both provided viewers with poignant flashsideways (with "Lighthouse's" Jack-centric arc hinting that things in the flashsideways may not be as they seem) and serviceable-to-good on-island drama. Probably the best constant plot point of the year is the candidate mystery, which has turned out to be one of the show's better driving forces.

But, of course, there have been flat moments as well, like the predictably boring "What Kate Does" and the fact that when the show should have been at its most expansive, half of the cast was trapped in a temple courtyard for about five episodes (season three cages, anyone?).

Regardless of all of that, "Ab Aeterno" left me energized and hopeful for the remainder of the season. Therefore, I'll leave you with a couple of roundups, one summarizing the season up to this point and one looking forward to what we should hope for/expect in upcoming episodes.

Season Six Pros And Cons (so far):

Pros:
Juliet is dead.
The flashsideways do not appear to be a useless element of the show.
The candidate mystery is going strong.
We are getting some answers.
Jack is heading down a great arc towards redemption.
Hurley's power is more clearly manifesting itself.
Jacob has been at work.

Cons:
Kate is alive (sorry, I had to). Also, many of the most beloved characters have died by now.
The flashsideways, while of interest at times, are not as satisfying of a narrative device as the flashbacks or flashforwards.
The acting is still a bit hammy
Are we getting enough answers?
NO DESMOND (this one is the worst).

What To Look For In The Final Nine Hours:

As I said previously, "Ab Aeterno" represents a reiteration of the age old Lost adage: We are going to explain this to you. Presumably, this episode should signal a shift into answer mode - probably not in the barrage we were presented with last week, but in a steady stream in which the juiciest bits are saved for last.

Lost is notorious for attempting to trick its viewers into believing that more questions have been answered than actually were, so don't view the latest episode as a be all and end all to your Lost queries. As a guide, take a look at this article that I wrote at the beginning of the season about Lost mysteries that still need to be cleared up.

In it, you'll find some encouraging news. We can essentially cross Richard and the Black Rock off the list entirely. We're also making a dent in the "overall mythology" category, although additional information about who/what Jacob is as well as all of the Egyptian imagery still needs to be addressed. I also think that Richard's origin story more or less served as a de facto explanation of the Others' origin, but more work is required there too. Same thing with the numbers.

On the other hand, the five other categories (What's going on with Christian, Aaron, Walt, the flashsideways, and the Dharma Initiative) remain virtually undiscussed. All three of the aforementioned characters have been conspicuously absent, with Walt not even warranting passing reference. The flashsideways will presumably not be addressed til the very end of the show, so that's OK, I suppose. But the Dharma Initiative... oh boy. That's something else altogether.

The way the writers have handled the DI is quite possibly my least favorite treatment of a Lost mystery. We know almost nothing about them beyond the fact that one offshoot of the team was looking into time travel. Everything else remains a mystery, and it's one that the writers do not seem ready to address. No word on how they found the island, no word on what their other studies were, no word on their continued interest in the island (remember the food drops?), and, most importantly to me, still no word on the Initiative's implied ulterior motives. Will any of this be addressed? I'm really not sure.

Nevertheless, the coming episodes promise to be interesting. First of all there's the expectation. While the hook of mysteries solved is obviously a huge reason to keep watching, we are now getting ready to see events really come to a head. Widmore and unLocke are preparing for a showdown, and a confrontation with Ilana can't be too far behind. The fates of both Sayid and Claire are in question too, and, perhaps most enticingly, Lost fans have begun to get that creeping sensation that character death is near.

Think about that for a second. The writers have held off for a long time. Not only has a main character not been offed yet, but, with the exception of Juliet, not even any significant minor characters have been killed (and Juliet was practically dead before the season even began). While season one had to wait for introductions before the killing could begin and season four waited until the end of the season to unleash its havoc (though from episodes nine through 14, we saw the demise of Carl, Danielle, Alex, Keamy and *sniff* Michael), the other three seasons drew blood very early, with Shannon getting shot in episode six of season two, Eko getting beaten to death by Smokey in episode five of season three and Charlotte dying of what seems to be a time-travel-triggered brain aneurysm in episode five of season five. We are now halfway done with this season, and none of the main characters have thrown off the mortal coil. One of them is bound to do it soon (my money is on Richard or Sayid).

The other reason to look forward to the final episodes is the casting. Please be aware: I promise I won't reveal any plot spoilers (I don't know any myself), but if you don't want to know about past characters who will be appearing in upcoming episodes in some fashion, skip the next four paragraphs.

While we've seen a few familiar old faces in the flashsideways (most notably Charlie, Arzt and Charlotte, but also Ethan, Helen, Liam and others), casting announcements are telling us that the majority of appearances are yet to come. Charlie is slated to appear in more episodes, as is Boone, and there are several other deceased characters who will be making an appearance, including Shannon, Anna Lucia, Libby, Michael and, best of all, Daniel.

Also, different press releases have revealed which characters will get their own centric episodes in coming weeks. This week it will be Sun and Jin, two weeks from now it will be Hurley, and in between those will be (squee!) Desmond! With these announcements (and the announcement that the third to last episode will feature Jacob and the Man in Black) we can be sure that things are going to get pretty interesting.

We can also start speculating about the five remaining hours not currently aligned with a character. If Lost's past season finales are any indication, the last two hours are probably not going to be character centric, leaving us with the episode right before the finale and the episodes two and three weeks before that. Who these episodes focus on is important. It seems likely that at least one of the characters (likely Jack) will have more than one centric episode, but there are still four main characters (Ilana, Frank, Miles and Claire) who haven't gotten their own episodes this year. My money is on Frank and Ilana getting at least a sizable chunk of an episode each (particually Ilana, whose backstory is begging for an explanation). The other episode will then be a repeat.

However, I could be very wrong. Even if a character like Jack ends up getting the episode before the finale, it seems weird that two of the show's least iconic characters would take up episodes so close to the end. However, they must be choosing their episode emphases carefully these days, as the central character will determine much of that hour's story.

Whatever the remaining disappointments, dramatic reveals, casting questions and mystery hopes, it's clear that the show isn't out of the woods yet (nor should it be). But then again, do we really want it to be at this point? One element of the Lost experience that has become more fascinating over the years is the high level of risk with which the viewers invest themselves in the show. Think of it this way: by the end of the show, Lost will be the equivalent of 121 episodes long. If you watched every episode on TV once, you would be watching for four days and 21 hours. Assuming you slept and did nothing else, it would take you a whole week to finish.

And that's just one time through. If you are among the hardest of hardcores who watched the show from the beginning and then watched each season again on DVD before the next one came out, you're dealing with totals ranging in the area of 355.5 hours (14.8 whole days, or 22.2 waking days!). And that's without watching favorite episodes over again or rewatching the last week's episode before the new installment. The point of all this is that even for a newcomer like myself (seasons one through five twice over, with part of season five on TV, plus season six online), this is a significant investment of time. While shows that aren't inherently mysterious may end unsatisfactorily, you can still enjoy the ride. While Lost has been mostly great over its run, you're essentially betting the farm on the end of the show because that's what provides the show with meaning. It's kind of exciting not knowing how your gamble is going to turn out.

Then again, wouldn't it just suck if it ends poorly?

Lost Lists, Part 4: Best and Worst Characters

2010-01-30T19:44:00.011-06:00

I'm double posting today in order to get all of the lists out by Tuesday. I once again encourage everyone to read this on the actual Web site for formatting reasons. Lastly, this post is the last Lost list that will appear on Reviewing Life, as the final two are slated to appear on GooseRadio. I will link to them when they are up.

If it could have been argued in the past that Lost was not a science fiction show, all such protestations have by now been firmly put in their place. However, even before time travel and weird Dharma stations, Lost acted like science fiction, in that it used the on island situations to explore real world themes and philosophies. And, like the skilled science fiction writers they are, J.J. Abrams and company realized that the dilemmas, mysteries and, well, science on their show would only be palatable if their story was populated with interesting characters.

To this end, they have done an almost (but not quite, as you'll soon see) universally good job at making their main and supporting characters complex, compelling and diverse people. And let's not forget their sheer numbers. With the announcement of season six's starring cast, the final tally for main characters appears to be 28 (unless they pull a season five Jin again and introduce a new main cast member partway through). To put that in perspective, the revolving door, 15-season-long ER only had 26 characters with top billing. NYPD Blue (12 seasons) had 24, and Dallas (14 seasons) had 17 (source: Wikipedia).

This combination of quality and quantity have created one of TV's richest worlds. This list will give you the 10 characters I think have contributed to that world the best. First, however, I'll give you five characters that have done more harm than good.

Lost's Five Worst Characters

5. Shannon Rutherford

This one is more of a missed opportunity than anything else. I have many friends who hate on Shannon to no end, and I don't really think that's fair. Maggie Grace played the role she was given, that of a manipulative, spoiled brat, quite well. That her character was unlikeable isn't necessarily a bad thing, as not every character is meant to be a sympathetic one. And, as her time on the island went on, she eventually matured a little bit and began to show some sort of character progression.

Then she died, serving no purpose but that of a plot device to make the main section survivors view the tail sectioners with animosity. To further add to the pointlessness, her stepbrother Boone was already dead, his main contribution being tripping over the hatch and making Locke feel guilty. The two characters' (especially Shannon's) contribution to the mythology and overall progress of show are infinitesimal, and yet they both received flashbacks, centric episodes, the works. Assuming that the island picked these people for a reason, the question now becomes why?

Worst Moment: Seeing Walt and then getting shot.

4. Juliet Burke

My previous Juliet bashing aside, I do feel bad that I have to include her. While her writing and that stupid smile have always seemed a bit trite to me, the little else I've seen Elizabeth Mitchell in has been good, at least partially due to her being in it (see particularly ABC's V). And her role on Lost, while never captivating, was at least mildly interesting at the beginning of her story. Her opening scene in season three is probably one of the most memorable moments of the show.

However, both her likability and importance have gone down considerably since her debut, and season five reached new lows as she became nothing more than Sawyer's personality-free girlfriend who would occasionally take nonsensical actions in order to move the plot forward. It's all about motivation, but Juliet doesn't seem to have any. Bottom Line? I'd really like that bomb to go off, hopefully blowing her up with it.

Worst Moment: Clearly it is the completely out-of-place divorce "reveal" ("The Incident"), if you can even call it that.

3. Nikki and Paulo

These two would make the absolute bottom if they were on the show more, but thankfully, the writers realized what a mistake they'd made fairly quickly. The attempt to retcon these two into the plot was awful and sloppily done (a fact that Sawyer humorously references in "Expose" with his repeated "Who the hell is Nikki?" questions). Fortunately, we only had to see them in seven episodes before the writers, sensing viewer hatred, not only killed them off, but buried them alive. Sweet.

Worst Moment: Either their retconned Pearl discovery or their weird accompaniment of Locke to the Pearl later.

2. Kate Austen

While Kate was all right but unspectacular in season one, seasons two and beyond saw her turn first into a childish pouter who always followed other characters through the jungle after being told she couldn't come with them and later into an emotional crybaby who made the often trembling-lipped Jack look positively stone-faced. Whether it was her should-I-or-shouldn't-I relationship with Sawyer and Jack, her seemingly endless "Mom, why won't you thank me for killing your husband?" flashback episodes or her constant agonizing over Aaron's welfare, you just get tired of all the weepiness. That the writers never give her anything really important to do only adds to the problem.

To be fair, she does do something interesting every now and then, but a few good flashback episodes aren't enough to earn her redemption.

Worst Moment:, Her sobbing "They're gonna kill Sawyer!" in "I Do" has always particularly irritated me. That and all of her "I must get that toy plane back!" episodes.

1. Ana Lucia Cortez

I know my list must seem misogynistic, but it's not my fault: a few characters aside (Danielle, Sun, etc.), Lost just isn't quite as good at handling female characters. Perhaps it's just that Lost is primarily a man's world - out of the 28 main characters, only 10 of them are female, and, depending on Juliet's fate, only four or five of them have survived to see season six (and Claire made it by skipping season five altogether).

All perceived misogyny aside, however, Ana Lucia really is terrible. Sulky, unemotive (except when she was angry), constantly looking as if she was vaguely sick to her stomach - all of these words or phrases could be used to describe her. She was written shallowly, and Michelle Rodriguez did nothing to make this portrayal any better. She was also irritating, spitting out all of her lines with a half-formed sneer that made you wonder why the tail section survivors hadn't looked to Mr. Eko for help instead of her.

In short, I was a little relieved when Michael finally shot her. A brief interesting story arc involving Christian aside (and even then, it was interesting because of Christian, not her), her tenure on the show was one of nearly constant aggravation.

Worst Moment: When she has sex with Sawyer.

Now, the good.

"Lost's" 10 Best Characters

Please note: these rankings are based on a combination of which characters are actually my favorites and which ones I think add the most to the show. These two opinions are often the same, but not always.

10. Jack Shephard
First appearance: "Pilot"
Currently: In the past, escaping what is probably "The Incident"

Jack has his ups and downs, but uncertainty about miracles, occasional whimpering and fixing complex aside, he really is the soul of the show, and, for a character who has had to deal with so much, he really is a good protagonist. His relationship with his father is an added bonus, as is his tumultuous marriage.

Jack was originally going to be killed in the pilot, but ABC insisted that he be kept on as the main character. For once, the meddling network executives were right; a show like "Lost" needs an everyman, and Jack fills the role nicely.

Best Moment: Every moment he was onscreen with the crazy beard. Man, I loved that thing.

9. Martin Keamy
First appearance: "The Constant"
Currently: In the present, dead, presumably rotting on the floor of the Orchid

Though he only makes an appearance in 10 episodes (nine if you don't count his brief ghostly appearance in "Dead Is Dead"), the menacing mercenary makes the most of every minute of screen time he can grab. He is the driving force behind much of season four's drama, as you know that he will only wait so long for the four freighter folk before coming down hard on the island's inhabitants. Every moment he's onscreen is filled with a sense of grim inevitability, a sense that is only increased when he dons the killswitch. He's also responsible for three supporting character deaths in two episodes, which is a pretty big amount in a short time, even on "Lost."

Best Moment: A tie between him killing Alex and the "fix my gun" moment with Captain Gault.

8. Christian Shephard
First appearance: "Walkabout"
Currently: In the present, presumably hanging out with Claire. Last seen telling Sun to wait for Locke.

Christian is one of the most important (if not the most important) factors in making Jack as interesting as he is, and his own story is pretty compelling as well. John Terry does an excellent job portraying a father who really does love his son but who is crippled by pride. Plus, there's the always fascinating question: What's he doing up and walking around, anyway?

Best Moment: Drinking in the bar with Sawyer.

7. James "Sawyer" Ford
First appearance: Pilot
Currently: In the past, escaping The Incident and mourning over the presumed loss of Juliet.

Sawyer occupies a special place in both the hearts of many fans and the overall makeup of Lost itself. Fans have (understandably) latched onto Sawyer because of his wisecracking personality and endearing nicknames. He's good for the show because he's one of the only characters who has actually undergone a significant change in personality and character over the years.

Josh Holloway has also shown a surprising depth over the course of the show, portraying a man who is at times wiseacre, at times tortured, at times responsible leader and at times wracked with guilt and self-doubt. His changing roles on the show have served it well.

Best Moment: His long con to acquire the guns.

6. Richard Alpert
First appearance: "Not In Portland"
Currently: In the past, presumably dragging the unconscious Eloise back to the Others' camp, and in the present, looking at Locke's dead body with confusion.

Richard is always so fun because the show rarely ever addresses his apparent immortality. He's just always around, safeguarding a nuclear bomb, checking up on Locke, taking Ben in, recruiting Juliet, etc. Why he is the way he is is seldom mentioned, making him a fascinating, enigmatic character. He also always remains on an even keel, and he even seems kind, a trait not usually seen in the Others. The word that he's going to be one of the main characters on season six is good news to me.

Best Moment: His testing of young Locke to see if he was eligible for the "special school."

5. Charlie Pace
First appearance: "Pilot"
Currently: Serving as fish food in the submerged Looking Glass station.

Charlie was one of the few characters on Lost who was good for both comedy and pathos. His wit was always sharp, but his story arc, both on and off the island, was quite poignant. He was a very well rounded character.

While Lost is known for great characterization, many of the players on the show are not easily to relate to. Charlie, however, is, if only because his constant confusion and impetuousness in the face of danger mirrors the way that many, perhaps even most, people would act in those situations. He met us where we are on a more personal level too. Even though he was a rock star, Charlie illustrated the failures faced by us all and our own quests for redemption.

Best Moment: If I had to pick one, it would be his sacrificial death scene.

4. Daniel Faraday
First appearance: "The Beginning Of The End"
Currently: Dead in the past, shot by his mom.

There is something so oddly compelling about Faraday, probably because everything seems to go drastically wrong for him. He put the woman he loved in a coma, he zapped his memory, he was fired from Oxford, the next woman he loved died because he couldn't save her and his mom knowingly sent him to his death. Poor guy.

And yet, rather than wallow in misery, Faraday always attempted to get up and move on, always putting others first and trying to do what was right. In a way, there is a sense of purity about him. Perhaps no other character on Lost has been so consistently selfless.

Best Moment: You've gotta love Shaggy Dan from the past, but I'll say the missile test when he first realizes that something might be wrong with the island's timeline.

3. Desmond Hume
First appearance: "Man of Science, Man of Faith"
Currently: In the present, recovering from a gunshot wound at the hospital.

Oh Desmond, how I love you so. Henry Ian Cusick hits every right note, perfectly capturing this poor, scared, unlucky man who just wants to live happily ever after with his girlfriend (are they married yet?).

The time travel elements of Desmond's character are always good for speculation, and he plays them up perfectly, but the primary draw of this beleaguered Scot is his likability. He just genuinely seems to be a good guy, and it is his character who I most want to see survive the show.

Best Moment: A toss-up between his entire performance on "The Constant" and when he beats the crap out of Ben.

2. Sayid Jarrah
First appearance: "Pilot"
Currently: In the past, hopefully not bleeding out in the jungle.

Sayid is my favorite character. He may not have had the most influence on the show, but Naveen Andrews always seems to know exactly when to play him as tormented, angry, bemused or sympathetic. He's not a good person, but he truly wants to be, and his self-loathing just makes us want to comfort the poor guy.

Acting like the sensitive guy is only one part of Sayid's role, however. The other part is arguably more important: serving as Lost's consummate badass. I mean, come on. He's constantly trekking, shooting, torturing or otherwise killing people and things, all ostensibly for the greater good. It's enough for me to even excuse his womanizing tendencies. However, this season promises to be one of the saddest for our dear old Republican Guarder. Between his dire wound and the writers' constant mission to keep his from being happy, I've got to agree with the MTV movie blog on this one: there's no way he's making it out of season six alive.

Best Moment: All of his flashback/forward performances, the scene where he fights the men in the safehouse, and, of course, "snap[ping] that guy's neck with that breakdancing thing you do with your legs."

1. Benjamin Linus
First appearance: "One Of Them"
Currently: In the present, hanging out inside of the foot statue after killing Jacob.

Cuse and Lindelof often cite "Star Wars" as a major influence on their work, and perhaps nowhere is it more apparent than in their realization that making the villain the best part of the story totally rules. I may like Sayid a bit better, but Ben has been a major series player since the very beginning of his "Lost" tenure, and things have only gotten crazier since.

Perhaps the best thing about Ben is that he's got his finger in everything. You never know what he's gunning for until whatever he wanted to happened has happened, and only then do you realize that he's not only been manipulating the characters into doing his foul bidding, but the audience into wanting it. He is perhaps the primary mover and shaker of the show's last three seasons, and, unlike many of the other characters, the motivation for his actions has always been clear and menacing: whatever keeps me on top.

Best Moment: The Henry Gale saga, culminating in the "Got any milk?" scene, which may be one of the best in the show's history.

Lost Lists, Part 3: Flashbacks and Speculation

2010-01-28T17:30:00.009-06:00

You should know the drill by now, although I'm making a slight change today. From now on, when there is a negative list, it will be placed before the corresponding positive list, so as not to end the article on the negative note. Let's begin.

"Lost's" Top Five Flashbacks

I was going to do a bottom three list for this one, but then I realized that the only character who has bad flashback episodes on a relatively consistent basis is Kate, and I've already expounded a little bit on why I dislike her, with more to come in the next list. Anyway...

Flashbacks are integral to "Lost's" first three seasons (as are the flashforwards in season four), but, from a characterization perspective, they've had ramifications on the entire show. The writers used them to establish backstory, reveal plot points and - in one special case, as you'll see below - create plot points on the present day island.

Another thing that I've always liked about the flashbacks is that not all of the best flashbacks belong to the best characters. I'm still finalizing my top 10 characters list, but at least two of the characters on this list won't be making it onto that one. Note: When I give the flashback count, I am counting flashforwards, and I am only counting episodes in which all or most of the flashbacks are centered around that character. Also, I'm not counting season five, as many of the flashbacks from that season are primarily expository in nature and could be considered as happening concurrently with the main action.

5. Hurley
Flashback count: five

Hurley is a solid character, but, crazy-guy angle and Libby lamenting aside, he's primarily used for comic relief. Thus, when he does get a flashback episode, it's always interesting to see Jorge Garcia show his chops.

Sometimes the flashbacks contain even more comedy than a traditional Hurley appearance, like season one's "Numbers," which rather darkly parades a seemingly endless amount of mishaps that befall Hurley after he wins the lottery. Most often, the flashbacks are surreal, showing the audience the weird misery in which Hurley has lived much of his life (the most infamous incident is the meteor strike from "Tricia Tanaka is Dead," but the best example of this kind of episode is "Dave").

However, my favorite flashbacks of his are from "Everybody Hates Hugo," which features Garcia's best acting on the show to date. In this episode, the flashbacks parallel Hurley's on-island dilemma, as his problems as the food supervisor seem to mirror what happened to him when he won the lottery. Hurley has often said that he would get rid of his winnings if he could, but we've never believed it more than when he makes his best friend promise never to change.

4. Charlie
Flashback count: four

I wish that Dominic Monaghan's fame for playing Charlie exceeded the amount he got for playing Merry, but such wishes are in vain. Nevertheless, Monaghan managed to create a smart, funny and dramatic character in his washed-up British rock star, and nowhere is that character more on display than in his flashback episodes.

Even though Charlie only had four episodes of his own before he died, the writers weave one of the saddest backstories on the show into these moments. To watch good brother Charlie's downward spiral into drug addiction while the undeserving Liam got clean is an experience in depressing irony, and we can't help but feel for the guy.

While you can't beat "Greatest Hits" for an overall Charlie episode, my favorite flashbacks for the character occur on "Fire + Water," when Charlie's dreams of a comeback are fatally dashed by Liam, who, even in his attempt to get clean, is more selfish than Charlie ever could be.

3. Michael
Flashback count: 4

Two of his flashbacks are primarily expository, and he shares three of them with Walt, but the writers sure know how to make you feel for this guy. Michael is often maligned by many "Lost" fans who I know, primarily because of his at first angry behavior and later because he shouts "WAAAAALT!" all the time. However, all of his flashbacks provide a very deep insight to his character.

In the flashbacks, you see Michael for what he is: a very flawed and inexperienced father who loves his son very much. The first thing this does is make you feel much more sympathy for his character (and hatred for Walt's mom. Man, it burned me when I found out she didn't give Wallt any of Michael's letters). The second thing it does is help you understand why Michael is the way he is. When you find out his backstory, you begin to understand his cross demeanor and his over-protectiveness. He becomes much more well rounded.

While the two expository flashbacks ("Meet Kevin Johnson" and "Three Minutes") are fine, Harold Perrineau really shines in the two Walt-story episodes, particularly in "Adrift," the one about the custody battle (although "Special" contains my favorite Michael scene, when he shows Walt his letters and doesn't drag Mom's name through the mud while doing so).

2. Desmond
Flashback count: four

Desmond is obviously a unique case, as his flashbacks were the ones I mentioned previously as having present day influence on the plot. While every other character's flashback is presented as a retrospective narrative, Desmond participates in two of his four flashbacks, and he realizes that he is in the past (he also does this one other time, in the season five premier).

Desmond is such a good character that his two normal flashbacks are as interesting and sympathetic his two "Back to the Future" outings. In the two normal episodes, we learn about Desmond's relational cowardice and the rather odd succession of jobs he took in an attempt to find fullfillment. There's also lingering mystery, as we find out that he was court-marshaled and that Libby gave him his sailboat.

However, his two trippy time travel flashbacks are the real winners. "Flashes Before Your Eyes" is an interesting journey, as it features the debut of Faraday's mother and the first real inklings that time travel was part of "Lost." And, of course, there's "The Constant," perhaps the show's most successful effort to date at combining sci-fi with characterization.

1. Locke
Flashback count: seven

If one thing could be said conclusively about John Locke, it is this: the man has some serious issues. While many of these issues, like his hatred of limitation and his childish desire to be special, come into play at various times over the course of the series, none of them can match his absolutely epic daddy issues. Jack should feel lucky.

Everyone loves "Walkabout," and it is a good episode, but there's just something wonderfully unsettling about Locke's other season one flashback, "Deus Ex Machina." You sense there's something wrong with Locke's dad from the start. You just don't expect the thing that's wrong to be, "He pretended to be close to me in order to steal my kidney." Weird stuff had already been happening on the island by this time, but this episode showed that some pretty bizzare stuff could come from these characters' pasts, too.

My favorite Locke flashbacks are in "The Man From Talahassee," when we finally learn why he ended up in the wheelchair. It's played nearly perfectly, as it provides not only emotional satisfaction, but, because they wait until the middle of season three to reveal it, narrative satisfaction as well. Locke is never more interesting than in his flashbacks.

OK, next list.

My Biggest "Lost" Hopes and Fears

If you haven't figured it out by now, I'm pretty darn excited about season six. While this wouldn't be surprising on the surface, it might be just a little confusing when you look at my "best seasons" list from yesterday. "Lost" has been a little lackluster as of late, and yet, I'm still anticipating Feb. 2 with baited breath.

However, behind my excitement, there does lie a twinge of fear. While I trust that Lindelof and Cuse are working their hardest to make a good show, there are still some things that could go terribly wrong. Here they are.

3. We could see a slide further into melodrama

As I've said before, season five was so full of overacted deliveries you could swear you were watching a soap opera (or a sidearm pitcher). With the exception of some good Faraday moments, gone were the times of cerebral mysteries and puzzling quandaries, and here were the days of "buh, buh, All this happened because you left!" and "(sob) You looked at her funny!" and so on. The last couple of episodes of season five have sort of started to dispel the melodrama a little bit, but it was by no means absent. This season, let's hope for more science fiction weirdness and less uninteresting love story.

2. A lot of the most interesting characters are dead/missing/fading into the background

I've written previously that the writers are to be commended for their willingness to kill off fan favorites for the sake of the story. The problem, however, is that many of the dead characters (here's looking at you, Charlie, Mr. Eko and Daniel) are among the most interesting characters. To top it off, of the remaining characters, the writers have chosen in recent times to focus primarily on Locke (now unLocke), Jack, Sawyer, Juliet and Kate. While Locke, Jack and Sawyer are all good characters to various extents, the three of them fighting with each other/other people does not a good show make.

In season five, Jin and Sun were relegated to tagalong status, Desmond left the island (and is not on the main character list for season six), Sayid was locked in jail for a while and then disappeared for several episodes, Faraday left the island for several episodes, Ben whined a lot and Hurley and Miles engaged in an endless (but admittedly funny) Laurel and Hardy time travel routine. There a lot of good characters here who didn't do very much.

There's much hope that things will be different this time around, and there's also word that many of the dead characters will be showing up in the final season. Unless this jumps the shark, we could see a more balanced cast this year.

1. There are still a ton of unanswered questions

Even though "Lost" has given us plenty of thrills, chills and spills over the years, the only reason we've stuck around to see them is because the premise of the show implicitly promises that one day, eventually, our questions will be answered. While the writers have promised that most of the mysteries will indeed be addressed, the sheer volume of mind bending elements packed into the first five seasons seems almost insurmountable.

Granted, they probably won't even attempt to answer every nagging complaint, and they probably shouldn't have to. But even if you toss out some loose ends (why is Libby in the insane asylum, who are Adam and Eve, etc.), you still have a lot to answer for.

And that, ultimately, is my biggest fear about Feb. 2 and beyond. If we come away still scratching our heads about what was actually going on, not only season six will be ruined. The entire show will be.

OK, here's the less depressing list: my hopes.

3. I think Jack caused The Incident when he set off the bomb

There are many reasons why I think this is important to the fortunes of the show. The first is that we then stay in the same timeline as all of the questions and characters we've watched and care about for five seasons. The second is that Juliet might be dead, thus lessening her impact on the plot this year.

The third reason is that The Incident is one of the anchoring events of the entire show. Its occurrence now sets up or indicates the coming of several events only hinted at so far, like the origin of the hatch's button, Mikhail Bakunin and his crazy eye patch, the purge, the orientation videos and more. It could be the beginning of the show's attempt to answer some questions.

2. Old characters return!

While this could push at the bounds of believability (even for "Lost"), I can't help but be excited that the writers have confirmed that many of the dearly departed players will return, including Charlie, Boone and Faraday. Not only does it signal a nostalgia laden trip down memory road, but the surprise announcement that characters like Michael and Libby will also be returning is good news for some lingering mysteries to be cleared up.

1. They've been planning this since season three

Cuse and Lindelof have stated that the show getting an end date was a very liberating thing, as it allowed them to stop stalling and start planning how they really wanted things to finish. Since that time, they've made seasons four and five, which, for anything you might say about them, were nothing if not jam packed with story.

Season six promises to be no different, but more importantly, there is comfort to be had in knowing that the writers are and have been aware not only of the questions we had before the last three seasons, but also of most of the questions that have arisen since that time. "Lost" has been called by some a show primarily about faith. Perhaps the viewers should have faith that the show's creators know what they're doing.

"Lost" Lists, Part 2: Best Seasons and Best Twists

2010-01-26T19:21:00.004-06:00

A brief reminder to my Facebook readers. This blog is RSS Feeded to Facebook from www.ryanreviewslife.blogspot.com. I would love it if you read it there instead of on Facebook, as the formatting I give to the original post does not show up on Facebook notes and adds (I think) a bit more to the posts.

Welcome back to "Lost" Lists. Last time, I wrote about the show's most overused cliches and the best and worst deaths that we've seen so far. Today, I'll be running down the best seasons and the worst and best twists the show has given us thus far. Without further ado...

"Lost's" Worst To Best Seasons

While the overall story of "Lost" is one that continues throughout the entire show, each season has had its own little miniarcs that carve out a special place in the overall mythology. Some of these miniarcs have been great, others... eh, not so much. Here are my thoughts.

5. Season Five
Arc: "TIME TRAVEL, YOU GUYS! TIME TRAVEL! ALSO, LOVE TRIANGLES."

Like every season of "Lost," this one sure had its moments. It was nice that they finally came out in the open about the time travel elements of the the show, and there was some high adventure, but three things in particular dragged it all down. The first thing is that the time travel episodes in the beginning were quite similar and also disorienting, making it hard to understand what was going on. I know I wished for a constant a few times.

The second problem was the Jack/Kate/Sawyer/Juliet love triangle. Some viewers probably loved it. I, however, was bored to tears by it. Don't get me wrong, "Lost," like any truly good science fiction, only works when it cares about its characters. The only problem is that I don't care about these characters. Jack is a fine protagonist and Sawyer is very good, but I hate Juliet and Kate, and even if I didn't I wouldn't care about which one is dating which and who feels particularly angsty about it today. Geez, it's like a teen drama, and it chewed up screen time, relegating great characters like Sayid, Desmond, Hurley, Miles, Faraday and others to much more minor roles.

The final problem was that it was just all so melodramatic. This started a little bit in season four, but it really reared its ugly head when 2009 rolled around. Back when Ben was in his heyday, he wouldn't just shrug off the deaths of a plane's innocent passengers. He'd make you think it was all your idea. Dramatic one liners abounded, intended to create tension but actually revealing laziness. It was as if the writers got too wrapped up in how awesome their high concept show was and sometimes forgot to make it high concept.

Hopefully, some of these problems will be fixed this year.

4. Season Two
Arc: "So, there's this hatch..."

The first time I watched this season through, I considered stopping altogether. The second time through was much more interesting, but it still suffers from a few key problems.

First, the good. This season stops messing around with Season One's proclivity to shove smoke monsters and numbers and polar bears in your face with absolutely no explanation, hoping that you'll just go "Oh my gosh! So weird! So different! I'm blown away!" Instead, some method starts to be injected into the madness by way of the Dharma Initiative, beginning with the hatch, the first of Pierre Chang's mysterious films and, in the season finale, the capsule dump, one of my favorite unanswered questions thus far. You were still confused, but it was a much more organized confusion.

Also, some of the character drama was really good. Mr. Eko was always fascinating, and the Charlie/Locke conflict really heated up. And, of course, I can't leave out the most important character addition in season two: Benjamin Linus, the scheming, double-dealing, Machiavellian leader of the others.

Now, the bad. Well, first there's Ana Lucia. Gosh I hated her. Annoying, two-dimensional, and she wears the same clothing the entire time she's on the island. Gross. Besides her, however, the should they or shouldn't they debate with the button got a little old by the end of the season, as did Jack and Locke's faith vs. science shtick. Lastly, we can't forget Kate's downfall from a relatively interesting manipulative fugitive into a weepy, petulant nuisance (to be fair, this does start in season one, when she spends many of her flashback episodes attempting to retrieve a toy airplane).

On the whole, it's an interesting season, but it's not without its setbacks.

3. Season One
Arc: "There is some pretty weird stuff going on on this island."

The best things about this season are, of course, the best things about any opening season to a good drama: the premise and the introduction to the characters. "Lost" proved its quality in both of these areas, introducing the engrossing flashbacks (indeed, the season one flashbacks often upstage the events on the island) and creating a pilot that sucks you into the plot faster than that one guy got sucked into 815's engine.

The weaknesses are not really weaknesses, nor are they anyone's fault. The writers had to establish that weird shenanigans were about to go down, and they did so nicely. However, the first season was, from a mythology angle, all about setup, and "Dude, it's a polar bear! Weird, right?" is inherently less interesting to me than "Why is there a polar bear hanging around?" This is all OK by me, however. The first season isn't supposed to be the best.

2. Season Three
Arc: "Wait... I really don't understand the Others at all."

While this season certainly has its fair share of bumps in the road (Nikki and Paulo, too much time spent in the cages, Nikki and Paulo, Jack's tattoos, Paulo and Nikki), it took the hints of conspiracy and mystery that season two introduced and turned them into full-blown, head scratching craziness with the revelation that the Others live in a town just like regular people, if regular people lived in the middle of an island fueled by strange and hellbent forces that no mortal could begin to understand. The narrative strength also increased, particularly in the long, bittersweet road towards Charlie's death.

Besides the already mentioned hiccups, Juliet wasn't always the most interesting, and the death of Mr. Eko made it clear that basically the entire reason the tail section existed is for Rose and Bernard to be together. However, these things are forgivable. The positives already mentioned, along with the introduction of Desmond as a central character and the flashforward twist in the finale, made for a great season.

1. Season Four
Arc: "Well, if it's not Penny's boat, whose is it?"

While I enjoyed many of the more non-essential episodes of the first three seasons (a particularly fun one is "Tricia Tanaka Is Dead," more commonly known as "the one where Hurley finds the van"), I also loved the writers' decision to buckle down in season four and make it all about plot. The flashforwards were innovative and exciting, and Jack's bearded moments may be Matthew Fox's best acted scenes on the show so far.

The on-island action was gripping as well. The four freighter folks were introduced (my favorite? Faraday), Michael came back, Ben was vengeful and manipulative as heck and the whole drama was given additional urgency by the menacing Martin Keamy. It wasn't short on mythology either, as time travel began to be revealed in full force, particularly in "The Constant" and at the end with the frozen wheel.

This is an almost perfect season, perhaps marred only a little bit by the absence of Charlie and a bit of a slide into melodrama. Even with these small concerns, it is definitely "Lost" at its best.

Now, for today's second list:

"Lost's" Best Twists

One of the key dramatic devices used in "Lost" is the plot twist, turning everything we thought we knew on its ear. Sometimes these revelations have added to the show, and sometimes they haven't. Let's take a look.

Note: For the purposes of this article, a "plot twist" shall mean a new, unknown and unexpected revelation or action meant to advance the plot.

5. Daniel gets shot by his mom
Episode: "The Variable"

While Faraday's odd, about-face insistence that the survivors can indeed change the past irks me, the reveal that his destiny has, in essence, been set in stone since before he was born hits you like a sucker punch, particularly because of the person who kills him: Eloise Hawking, Faraday's mom.

That she knew throughout Faraday's whole life that she would kill him recontextualizes the forgetful physicist's entire journey on the show, and it casts Eloise's motives and intentions even further into doubt going into the final season.

4. Michael shoots Ana Lucia and Libby
Episode: "Two For The Road"

Sorry that my first two twists are also two of the best deaths, but "Lost" can pack a lot of good into one action - or, in this case, two actions. While I've always loved Michael, he was a bit... whiny in season two, and the writers didn't give him much to do besides having him say "I've gotta find my son" over and over (he sounds like a regular Tom Jane after a while). However, his murder of Ana Lucia is shocking and something that most viewers wouldn't think Michael capable of. When he instinctively offs Libby moments later, it hits us: he can't come back from this.

The gamechanging nature of this moment also serves as one of the more potent (and one of the first) reminders that, on "Lost," no one is safe. The tension is ratcheted up because Cuse and Lindelof aren't afraid to kill fan favorites. While Shannon and Boone died before the two tail section occupants, this is when we knew that the writers meant business.

3. The Others are civilized and live in a town
Episode: "A Tale Of Two Cities"

Clair's flashbacks and the abandoned Dharma hospital had already given us glimpses into the idea that the Others might be more than just savages, but the wide shot of Dharmaville nestled in the middle of the island was something else entirely. It was the establishing shot of season three, the season when we found out much more about the Others than any season before or since.

Besides the unexpected fact that the Others behave like normal folk when they aren't terrorizing the survivors, this twist also gets props for its stellar setup. The first time I watched the episode, I assumed that Juliet was another survivor whose backstory was being fleshed out for the first time. Then the house starts to shake, the camera looks up to see the plane breaking apart, and BAM! It's Ben! Good work, guys.

2. "We have to go back!" is actually a flashforward
Episode: "Through The Looking Glass"

This one was actually spoiled for me, but it can't be discounted. The flashforwards took one of the most beloved parts of "Lost" and changed it into an even more unique storytelling device, one that gave immediate context to many on-island plotlines and saved a lot of exposition that would have otherwise had to be done in season five. That they at first lead the viewer on to think that it's just another episode in Jack's sob story is just good writing.

1. Locke really is dead
Episode: "The Incident, Part 2"

Somehow, the writers managed to turn Locke's death into three separate twists. The first is in the finale of season four, when you find out that he's the one who's been in the coffin the whole time. It's nice, but not completely shocking or anything. After all, you knew it had to be one of the main characters.

The second twist is when he comes back to life. Yawn. I saw that coming from the moment Ben suggests that Locke be used as a substitute for Christian. It was the third twist, however, that caught me unaware.

Again, here is a twist that recontextualizes the things that came before it. Now you know why Locke has been acting a little more terrible than normal. Now you know why he hasn't whined for the last half of the season. Now you understand why he's been spouting all of this villainous verboseness. You still don't understand what he means, but you understand why he says it.

Also, as is important for any good twist, this one was completely unexpected. I'm guessing that almost all "Lost" fans thought that the island had healed Locke and made him a cocky jerk to boot (in fact, this is one reason why I wasn't as big of a fan of season five). Then, just like season two, when the show needed a shot in the arm, Cuse and pull this one out.

"Lost's" Three Worst Twists

One of the pitfalls with something like "Lost" (or really any quality, popular media icon) is that the people responsible for content can get a little too caught up in how awesome the product is and begin to think that anything they do will be the best thing ever. This is why we have things like the "Pirates of the Caribbean" sequels, season four of The Office and most of John Lennon's post-Beatles career. Here are three times when the writers were wrong about what would play well.

3. Dr. Chang is Miles' dad
Episode: "Some Like It Hoth"

This one isn't terrible so much as it is mediocre. It currently makes little difference to the show that Chang and Miles are related, unless you think that changing Miles from a snarky smart-alec into a emotional, misunderstood adolescent is a major plot improvement.

Indeed, the main problem with this twist is the melodrama (a problem which, as previously noted, plagued season five). Miles' contrived "You need me?" when Chang asks him to do something for him is one of the top three worst anythings to appear on the show.

2. Nikki and Paulo actually discovered The Pearl station first
Episode: "Expose'"

I understand why the writers needed to do this episode, and it even has its moments now and then, but I really didn't like the retconning of a major moment in the plot. Such a revelation is pointless, and it retroactively takes away from Locke's discovery of the station later on. Oh well. At least those two are dead now.

1. Juliet's parents are divorced
Episode: "The Incident, Part 2"

This only qualifies as a twist because the writers chuck it at you out of the blue as an explanation for Juliet's suddenly irrational and inconsistent behavior (by the way, have you ever noticed how the flashback doesn't even make sense with the rest of the episode? Everyone else is having significant Jacob moments, and all of the sudden Juliet's parents just pop up for no reason).

Her decision to help Jack blow up the bomb, based only on a supposed "look" that Sawyer gives Kate and the sudden announcement that "hey guys, she's got issues from her childhood," is by far the most contrived plot point that has occurred on the "Lost" thus far. Let's hope season six can't top it.

Stay tuned for more "Lost" lists!

"Lost" Lists, part 1

2010-01-26T18:11:00.002-06:00

Note: If you’re not a “Lost” fan, absolutely none of this will make sense to you, and I would encourage you not to bother. If you are a “Lost” fan, but you’re not caught up yet, I would implore you not to read any of these lists until you’re caught up. Spoilers abound.

I’m done. For about a week.

When I wrote these words, I had just finished watching “The Incident, Part 2,” otherwise known as the season finale of the penultimate season of “Lost.” Since this summer, I’ve been rewatching every episode in order to beef up on the mythology and chronology of the show before it begins its final season next week. However, I also had an ulterior motive.

The other thing I decided this summer about “Lost” is that I would write a very long article made up of lists about the best/worst things in the “Lost” universe. Recently, I’ve decided to split it up into six different lists, the first one of which is below. I will be posting the other five installments as the week continues, although one or two of them might appear on GooseRadio instead (check out my first article for that site here).

First, however, a more proper introduction.

I’ve been a “Lost” fan for about a year, much less than some of my more dedicated friends. However, I’ve become convinced that the story the creators are weaving is truly a great one, and it was very rewarding to rewatch all 100+ episodes knowing, to a certain extent, the context in which those episodes were placed. The first time around, you see, you don’t know what’s coming up next, which is fun but confusing. The second time, you can see what the writers were up to from the start, and it (mostly) starts to make sense. “Meet Kevin Johnson” aside, the nearly flawless continuity they’ve managed to keep is astounding for a show of this scope. The writing and characterization are excellent as well.

That being said, it’s impossible for a TV show of this length to not have at least a few bad parts. Even “Arrested Development” came up with “Ready, Aim, Marry Me.” These lists will have something of a fun look at the lamer elements of “Lost,” right along with all the good bits. In fact, that’s where this first installment of “Lost” Lists begins…

"Lost’s" Top Five Most Overused Clichés

Lost generally has great writing, but an obsession with “themes” can go a little too far when you hear the same old tune over and over again. Here are the worst.

5. “When the hell are we?” jokes

The only thing keeping this entry from being higher on the list is that it mercifully only went on for six episodes (season five, episodes 1-5, 7). However, those six episodes sure had some cringe-worthy moments: 10, in fact. That’s right. The first half of season five made a joke akin to “when are we?” or “where are we in time?” or “where the hell are we? We don’t even know when the hell we are!” an average of 1 2/3 times every episode, otherwise known as Tim Allen’s grunt ratio on “Home Improvement.”

OK, guys, we get it. It was a groan-worthy but also silly-grin-worthy joke the first time, but only the first time. The second time just made us think, “I hope they don’t make this into a thing,” the third, “Oh no, they’re making it a thing,” and beyond, “OH MY GOODNESS I HOPE THE SMOKE MONSTER JUDGES YOU ALL.” The time jump episodes (“This Place Is Death” excluded) are not some of “Lost’s” best fare to begin with; constantly referencing what is going on onscreen with a joke that you obviously think is super clever just makes things worse.

4. The Island telling people (OK, mostly just Locke) to do things

I understand that this is part of the mythology of the show, but at times it’s just become a catch-all for any otherwise unexplained action taken by everyone’s favorite balding crybaby. It’s often lazy, and it (along with the next item on my list) kind of makes hate Locke just a bit more.

The mythology argument is also becoming a little tenuous now that Jacob is on the scene. Is he the person Locke originally thought was The Island, or does The Island still function as its own entity? I originally thought the former, but the un-Locke once again references chit-chatting it up with the mysterious jungle-clad rock.

3. “Don’t Tell Me What I Can’t Do!”

OK, Locke, sure, I’ll just tell you what you can do: shut the hell up. Before I go on, I should note that I think Terry O’Quinn is a great actor, including his stint on “Lost.” I did become infuriated with him starting midway through season three, but that’s how you’re supposed to feel about him if you’re in the slightly saner Jack camp. He has imbued the character with a lot of pathos, and I admire that.

What I don’t admire is that the writers think that he can assert his constant need for independence in only three ways: breaking kitchenware when Ben questions him, hating wheelchairs and that stupid line. The first one is OK because it doesn’t happen very often, and the second one works because, again, O’Quinn is so good at his craft, but the oft-exclaimed line is the second most annoying thing to come out of a “Lost” character’s mouth on a regular basis. It’s petulant and whiny for one, which is a bit more forgivable because it’s supposed to be that way, but it’s also about as repetitive as the “when are we” jokes, except that it spans the entire length of the show.

2. “Live Together, Die Alone”

This is the line that beats out Locke’s. I know the original speech in which this appears is supposed to be a watershed moment for the survivors, but I found the expression a bit trite even then. The writers, however, seem enamored with it, which is highly unfortunate.

Like “The Island made me do it,” the phrase has become an excuse to make characters do things without actually giving them motivation. In short, I wish Rose had followed through when she threatened to sock Jack if he used the phrase again.

1. Daddy Issues

All right, all right. I have a confession to make. This one is overused so much that it’s kind of endearing. Let’s take a look see at every main character from the first five seasons and find out how many of them have had problems with one or both of their parents which have been implied to affect the character in a significant way.

Jack – The Classic. Can’t win his dad’s approval. Poor baby.
Kate – Killed who she thought was her stepdad but who was actually her real dad. Mom hates her for this.
Sawyer – Dad killed self, mom. Shapes his whole life around revenge.
Hurley – Dad abandoned him and only came back when he got rich. Suspects that he’s only in it for the money.
Locke – Mom insane, put him up for foster care. Dad (among other things) steals his kidney and pushes him out of a window with intent to kill.
Jin – Mom’s a prostitute, ashamed of fisherdad.
Sun – Dad is a conniving, controlling mobster/businessman.
Claire – Absentee, adulterous dad, mom in a coma because of an accident that may have been Claire’s fault.
Ben – Mom died in childbirth and then haunts him on the island. Dad is an alcoholic, abusive jerk.
Juliet – Parents divorced, caused her to disbelieve in relational permanence.
Walt – Mom died suddenly, dad doesn’t know how to be a father and also killed two people.
Shannon – She more has “brother issues” than anything else, but her dad died in a car accident and her stepmom is withholding and condescending.
Ana Lucia – Her mom suspects her (rightly) of committing murder, and she mingles personal concerns with on the job ones.
Daniel – His mom is withholding, controlling, rude, and, oh yeah, she knowingly sends him to his death by her own hand in the past (only on “Lost,” ladies and gentlemen). Also, his dad is probably Charles Widmore, which could open up a whole new realm of problems.
Miles – Secretive mom, absentee dad who really did love him, but Miles doesn’t know that until he goes back in time and hangs out with him while occasionally seeing his baby self.

That’s quite a list. The main characters who don’t make it are Charlie, Michael, Sayid, Desmond, Boone, Eko, Charlotte, Libby, Nicki and Paulo, and of those, it is at least briefly implied that Sayid, Michael and Charlie could have parental troubles. Of the remaining characters, there is only one character whose parent is even seen on the show. This means that, out of the 25 main characters that have appeared on “Lost” so far, Boone is the only one who is absolutely confirmed to have a non-crippling relationship with those who bore him.

I don’t actually mind this too much because it’s so widespread that it’s almost endearing, but man, what happened to Carlton Cuse and Damon Lindelof when they were little?

OK, next list.

“Lost’s” Top Five Deaths

“Lost” is a show in which death is an expected – if not always welcomed – thing, and it’s something that has both endeared people to the show (“it’s so daring and story-driven!”) and made them fly into fits of rage (“how dare they! [Name] was my favorite character!”). Of the 25 main characters so far (a number that will soon swell to 28 with season six’s addition of Richard, Ilana and Frank), only 12 have survived up to this point, and that’s only if both Juliet and Sayid make it out of The Incident alive (my bet is that Sayid will and Juliet won’t). Death is something that the writers are good at portraying, and many of the most poignant moments on the show come when a beloved character passes on. Here are five of the best, followed by three of the worst.

5. Frank Duckett
Death Episode: “Outlaws”

Even though he is featured in one of the worst “Lost” episodes of all time (but we’ll save that for another list), Frank’s mistaken-identity murder by Sawyer is still quite sad, and it gives us deeper perspective into the put-on tough guy persona of our beloved con man. The only thing that could make Mr. Duckett’s demise any better was if ominously-whispered “It’ll come back around” didn’t end up meaning “Sawyer, a boar is going to mess up your tent.”

4. Michael Dawson
Death Episode: “There’s No Place Like Home, Part 3”

I’ve always had a soft spot for Michael, even if the constant strains of “WAAAAALT” get on my nerves every now and then. Harold Perrineau always infuses his performance with believability and relatability, which is saying something when you play a new dad out-of-work architect who kills two people and then magically fails to commit suicide several times.

Speaking of which, it is the guilt Michael feels over killing Ana Lucia and Libby and the anguish over the estrangement from his son that really gives emotional weight to his almost-but-not-quite redemptive death. I know that the writers’ strike curtailed what was to be a more heroic final bow for Michael, but I still like the way the writers played it.

3. Ana Lucia and Libby
Death Episode: “Two For The Road” and “?”

Neither of these characters were particularly great (particularly not Ana Lucia, who I was kind of excited to see shuffle off the mortal coil), but the drama they gave Michael was excellent, and the surprise twist toward the end of the season combined with the introduction of Ben to inject new life into the show. There have been better twists on the show since then, but few have been more jarring and out-and-out surprising.

2. Daniel Faraday
Death Episode: “The Variable”

I was very sad and a little angry when this happened, as Faraday had been one of my favorite characters since his introduction and the writers killed him right as he got back from a several-episode hiatus. However, you can’t deny the dramatic setup and impact; while Faraday’s insistence on rejecting his “Whatever happened, happened” philosophy seems a bit out of character, every flashback scene with his mother was brilliantly paced, and the look of realization on the poor physicist’s face before he goes to the big mouse maze in the sky is just heartbreaking.

1. Charlie Pace
Death Episode: “Through The Looking Glass”

C’mon. You knew this was coming, didn’t you?

Charlie may have stopped breathing in the season three finale, but he was already dying 18 episodes earlier, when Desmond sets up the lightning rod in “Flashes Before Your Eyes.” The writers proceeded to toy with our emotions all season long, and it was gutsy of them to eventually follow through with the death of the rock star, by far the biggest fan favorite to be offed so far (well, besides Locke, but that’s different).

There were moments of tension, like Desmond’s decision to take Charlie on a trip that he knew could have ended in an arrow to the neck, and there were moments of poignancy, like the flashbacks of “Greatest Hits” and the developing relationship with Claire. However, the unquestionably best part of Charlie’s demise was the bravery with which he finally decides to pass on. The “Not Penny’s Boat” shot followed by the final sign of the cross may end up being the show’s most iconic moment.

Now, on a more negative note:

“Lost’s Three Worst Deaths

3. Shannon Rutherford
Death Episode: “Abandoned”

Legions of Shannon haters may disagree, but I’ll be quick to point out that the bikini-clad whiner had gotten considerably less annoying since her debut, making her one of the only main characters in the five season run to show considerable character progression. Besides that, her death makes her kind of pointless to the show, as the only thing she had ever contributed to the plot was knowing a little bit of French, an ability the writers could have easily given to another character. Her death didn’t even mean that much to Sayid, as he had already gotten over her by the middle of season two (you almost forget about their relationship sometimes, don’t you?).

Lastly, the ensuing chaos of her death meant that we forgot all about what caused her to die in the first place: trippy, backwards-speaking and still unexplained visions of a dripping wet Walt. What is up with that?

2. Matthew Abaddon
Death Episode: “The Life And Death Of Jeremy Bentham”

Nowhere else on “Lost” has a character been so built up only to end as an uninteresting footnote. Abaddon was creepy and always interesting in his sparse moments of screen time, and then, just as you think you’re about to find out more about what he actually does, he’s abruptly and unceremoniously shot by Ben, never to be heard from again. For heaven’s sake, the revelation that he is working with Naomi is treated like some sort of major plot point when it’s revealed, but no. Apparently he’s just a creepy dude who runs errands for Widmore. Lame.

1. Danielle Rousseau
Death Episode: “Meet Kevin Johnson”

This was another “too soon” death moment. Rousseau’s hunt for Alex had been one of the longest running plot points on the show. Then, when the two are finally reunited at the end of season three, she’s virtually ignored, only to be shot in season four as the second in a series of a character killing spree (Carl died moments before she did, and Alex was killed in the next episode).

Even though her quest was completed, the writers never brought closure to it, and they even wasted what could have been a look of fantastic regret as the dying Danielle realizes that, after all these years, it was all for naught. Instead, she just keels over. What a waste.

Look for more “Lost” lists as the week progresses!

The Best Of '09

2010-01-12T22:59:00.006-06:00

Hi all. Well, it’s the beginning/middle of January, and you know what that means: Ryan’s belated blog about the best movies and music from 2009. I tried to get it done in a timely manner this year, and I did do better than last year, but a number of things conspired against me, including the stomach flu, getting a real job, busyness and not having Internet access. I’ve made a few changes this year. I’m going to include a few clunkers on some “Worst” sections, and I will also copy Roger Ebert and award a special jury prize whenever I deem it appropriate. Now, without further ado, here they are: the best of ’09.

Top Five Albums of 2009:
2009 was an interesting year for my musical tastes. Jars of Clay, my favorite band, released “The Long Fall Back to Earth,” but, some stellar songs aside, it wasn’t quite up to snuff with their best work. David Crowder released an interesting, well-produced but rambling effort, and Ben Folds followed up the disappointing “Way to Normal” with an oddball collection of college accapella groups singing his songs (if you’re unsure as to who that album is supposed to be aimed at, join the club. My best guess is that slim demographic of people who have always wanted to hear an accapella group use the F word).

However, the most significant musical shift for me was my decision to start listening to 89.3 The Current at one of my temp jobs. While they are oftentimes too occupied with their own pretension to notice how bad some of the indie music they play really is (plus they crank the truly awful Michael Franti now and then), I also discovered some good musical acts that I would have otherwise overlooked. One of those acts is on my list.

5. Forget And Not Slow Down, by Relient k
Genre: Pop/punk

If I was the revisionist type, I’d go back to my best of 2008 list and take RK’s “Bird and the Bee Sides” off of my top five. This album, however, is much better and more focused than that disjointed and oftentimes repetitive EP. Written entirely about Matt Thiessen’s painful breakup, “Forget” marks RK’s most organic and laid back album yet, although tracks like “Sahara” and “If You Believe Me” still crank it up every now and then.

Thiessen’s lyrical abilities are back in line too. While not as heartfelt and fitting as 2004’s watershed effort, “Mmhmm,” the writing on “Forget” is witty, earnest and poetic (although one pop culture reference seems like a step too far back. “I’m the Cusack on the lawn of your heart”? I know it’s supposed to be funny, Matt, but really?).

However, the most notable feature of RK’s sixth LP is its progression. Many of the songs are linked by little interludes, intros and outros, the most effective of which is the “Sahara/Oasis/Savannah/Baby” song arc. While the music can get a bit indistinguishable at times, RK has crafted their second best album and some catchy pop.

Standout tracks: “Sahara/Oasis/Savannah/Baby,” “This Is The End (If You Want It)”

(While I said I wasn’t the revisionist type, I may be forced to kick this album off of the list if I’m able to listen to more of “Aim and Ignite” by Fun pretty soon. I've really liked the little I've heard of it.)

4. The Incident, by Porcupine Tree
Genre: Prog rock, metal

First things first: this is not one of Porcupine Tree’s best albums. In fact, it’s probably one of the least excellent albums since frontman Steven Wilson decided to stop messing around with inaccessible oddities and form an actual band. However, notice that I said “least excellent,” not “worst.” Even on one of their duller gems, these British metal rockers still put on a heck of a show.

This time around, they split their album up into two discs. One disc contains the album proper, which is one long composition split into several tracks/minisongs, and the other disc contains a few extra tracks thrown in for good measure. Both discs contain music well worth listening to.

Thematically, the album isn’t a significant shift for the band; the primary theme seems to be the sterilization of real life, a topic often covered by Wilson (particularly in Porcupine Tree’s last album, “Fear of a Blank Planet”). However, it’s covered well as usual, and the secondary theme of aging seems to add a new dimension to the writing.

The music is good too, containing some of the hardest and softest sounds for the band. The album/song idea drags every now and then, but it’s usually pretty tight and is more than compensated for by “Time Flies,” the album’s almost-12-minute, fluctuating centerpiece and possibly the best song the band has ever written.

Standout tracks: “Time Flies,” “The Incident,” “Bleak House,” “Remember Me Lover”

For my sensitive readers: Casual swearing every now and then, with an occasional cavalier attitude to sexual encounters

3. Ellipse, by Imogen Heap
Genre: Electronic, pop

Say what you will about Imogen Heap, but she certainly knows her way around her music. This purely electronic effort might be a bit too dainty for some musical palettes, but no blip is out of place, no loop is looped wrong, and Heap’s airy voice weaves in and out of the music with perfect precision.

If you only have heard Heap’s famous “Hide and Seek,” don’t come here seeking more of the same. While the AutoTune does make itself heard every now and then, there’s a lot more than an altered voice going on this time around, and what’s going on is a lot more upbeat as well.

However, I’m not selecting this album simply for my admiration of her craft. There are some truly worthwhile songs on this album, and “Swoon,” with its flawless electric riff, passionate vocals and just-right lyrics … oh my. “Swoon” is unquestionably the song of the year.

Standout tracks: “Fast Train Home,” “Swoon”

2. The Open Door EP, by Death Cab for Cutie
Genre: Alternative

Is it bad to say that I like this release more than any of the superbly talented DCFC’s full length albums? Because I think I do. “The Open Door” is a collection of B-sides from “Narrow Stairs,” and it demonstrates what the already good “Narrow Stairs” could have been if it was tighter and not quite as odd.

It’s on a little more solid rock ‘n’ roll ground than its predecessor, but we still get a healthy dose of Ben Gibbard’s quirky, self deprecatory introspection. I just wonder why these tunes didn’t make it onto “Narrow Stairs” to begin with.

Standout tracks: “Little Bribes,” “My Mirror Speaks”

1. Fantasies, by Metric
Genre: Alternative

I discovered this band after hearing “Collect Call” on The Current, and I’m sure glad I did. This album is clever, tight and rocking, and one spin on the headphones reveals a whole new layer of aural and production complexity.

Lead singer Emily Haines' voice fits every line and every riff perfectly, and the songs range in topic from a casual dance number to a quasi-parable about greed to a comparison of the legacies of The Stones and The Beatles (that The Beatles come out on top is just one more reason to love this Canadian band). I hope there’s more to come from these guys, but, in the meanwhile, I have a back catalogue to catch up on.

Standout tracks: “Collect Call,” “Gimme Sympathy,” “Satellite Mind,” “Gold, Guns, Girls,” “Stadium Love”

For my more sensitive readers: The F word a few times on “Satellite Mind” and a satirically cavalier attitude toward sex on “Gold, Guns, Girls”

Special Jury Prize: The Beatles remastered catalog

If you’re a Beatles fan, and even if you’re not, you should check out at least one of these albums. The sounds are crisp and truly do mark a noticeable improvement in quality, and really, any excuse to buy a Beatles album is a good one. Another cool bonus is that the CDs are packaged in miniature facsimiles of the original album cases, which is fun.

Worst album (that I listened to, anyway. The real worst album is probably “The Fame,” by Lady Gaga): Raditude, by Weezer

Earlier this year, I had grown to somewhat respect some of Weezer’s work (most notably The Red Album). This respect was highly deflated after the tepid and insubstantial “Raditude," which can only boast one good song: the catchy “If You’re Wondering If I Want You To (I Want You To).”

Top 10 songs of 2009 (in no particular order, except that “Swoon” is the best one):

“Swoon,” by Imogen Heap: the perfect pop song, the perfect electronic song. Just listen.
“Panic Switch,” by Silversun Pickups: if the rest of their album was as catchy and urgent as this, I wouldn’t be able to stop listening.
“Headphones,” by Jars of Clay: ironically (and perhaps intentionally) this parable about tuning out the world sounds best when listened to through headphones.
“Time Flies,” by Porcupine Tree: the sonic twists and turns never cease to please, and the chorus sounds like it’s being sung by a man who is starting to figure out what it means.
“Gimme Sympathy (acoustic),” by Metric: unfortunately, this song is currently only available on a live Current album, but that doesn’t make it any less beautiful.
“At Least I’m Not As Sad As I Used To Be” by fun.: Zany and eclectic. That’s all there really is to say.
“Never Forget You,” by Noisettes: I only wish that the rest of their album, “Wild Young Hearts,” could have so perfectly captured the Aretha Franklin/Diana Ross crossbreed that was so wonderfully done here.
"God Almighty, None Compares," by David Crowder Band: While I’ve heard a fair amount of genre jumping from Crowder over the years, I never expected him to dabble in prog rock. And yet, here it is.
“Little Bribes,” by Death Cab for Cutie: one of the best rock songs DCFC has ever attempted.
“This Is The End (If You Want It),” by Relient K: this little ditty is actually two songs put together, but they combine to continue RK’s streak of excellent closing tracks.

Worst song: a three way tie between “Obama Song,” by Michael Franti, “LoveGame,” by Lady Gaga and “Boom Boom Pow,” by the Black Eyed Peas. These three songs rate very high, not only in my worst of the year list, but also in my list of worst songs ever, or indeed worst things ever.

Top Five Movies of 2009:
I didn’t see as many movies as I wanted to last year. Again, if I decide to be revisionist, some of these might come down in favor of movies like “Coraline,” "Up in the Air" or “The Informant!” For now, however, here’s what I’ve got.

5. Star Trek
Director: J.J. Abrams
Starring: Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto

While the unending supply of Young, Attractive People sometimes makes you feel like you’re watching “The Hills in Space,” the acting (by Pine and Karl Urban, aka Bones, in particular) is actually pretty decent, and Abrams accomplishes what no other Trek movie has been able to do: appeal to (most) Trek fans as a solid, story-driven and mythology-conscious entry in the storied franchise (the red shirt joke is a nice little addition too), and appeal to most other people as being a pretty good, pretty watchable film.

Is it the best Trek movie? Most fans would say not a chance, but then again, most fans think that an old guy wearing a fake muscle suit and William Shatner screaming “KHAAAAN!” are the highlights of Trek’s silver screen appearances. It’s definitely the most well made picture, and Pine, unlike Shatner, can actually act. However, my favorite still has to be “Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home.” I’d like to see anyone else get away with time travel, whales in space and a satire of the 80s all at once.

4. Taken
Director: Pierre Morel
Starring: Liam Neeson, Maggie Grace

Yeah, yeah, you can groan all you want, and to a certain point I’ll agree with you: this is far from cinema at its finest, and the Academy sure isn’t planning on showering “Taken” with awards anytime soon. And yet, there’s just a bit more here than meets the eye.

For one thing, Neeson actually does take a fairly good dramatic turn here. While there’s still something inherently hilarious in watching Qui-Gonn Jinn kick, punch and shoot the everloving crap out of everything in sight, Neeson definitely scores some legitimately heartfelt scenes as a dad who genuinely cares for his daughter. People forget about it, but I’d wager there’s a good half hour of character development before the brawling begins.

Now, granted, I’m not including this movie here because of Neeson’s acting chops. Rather, I’m including it for what really are some top-notch action scenes, made on a comparably shoestring budget, and the aforementioned ridiculousness of Neeson’s decision to play one of the most relentlessly, brutally hardcore action heroes in a long time. In a Hollywood climate where action stars need to be emotionally conflicted or merciful, it’s hard not to feel a mild strain of incredulity as the normally placid Neeson takes absolutely no prisoners.

3. Sherlock Holmes
Director: Guy Ritchie
Starring: Robert Downey Jr., Jude Law, Rachel McAdams

I really didn’t think I was going to like this movie, but I was very pleasantly surprised that Ritchie didn’t take one of my favorite literary characters and change him beyond all recognition. While he’s quite a bit more physical in this flick than he is in the books, even this aspect of his personality is handled in a way that points back to his entirely cerebral personality.

The script is also surprisingly clever, and it doesn’t cheat with modern language or even very many modern intimations. There’s also a legitimate mystery that Holmes legitimately unravels (although there’s a bit of cheating because the audience never had a chance of figuring out the ending, but that’s more than forgivable because a fair amount of Arthur Conan Doyle’s own stories do the same thing). Moriarty even makes a brief appearance, with promises of more in the sequel. Bring it on.

2. State of Play
Director: Kevin Macdonald
Starring: Russell Crowe, Ben Affleck, Rachel McAdams, Helen Mirren

There is almost no one reading this who will like this movie as much as I did, but I’m OK with that. While the film certainly has considerable cinematic merits, I was as charmed by its message and setting as I was by its plot. Now I just need to see the British miniseries it was based on.

“State of Play” is, at its heart, a love letter to journalism, or at least to the journalism that has been romanticized ever since Woodward and Bernstein first made Nixon sweat. Crowe’s character, Cal McAffrey, is an affable, pudgy reporter with a messy cubicle and an attention to detail, and he is unquestionably a hero. The film even defends the traditional newspaper format, with some subtle jabs taken at news blogs every now and then.

On top of that, however, is a truly thrilling film, with good performances all around. It’s gripping, and you’ll very much care about the characters by the end of it. In fact, it would have been my best of the year, if it weren’t for the incredibly spectacular film that also was released in 2009.

1. Up
Director: Pete Docter
Starring: Ed Asner

What a fantastic movie. Pixar outdoes even the spectacular “Wall-E” and “The Incredibles” in this film, a modern day fantasy about disillusionment, aging and love.

It’s rare to see any movie, let alone an animated one, that’s as profoundly touching as this tale of Carl Fredricksen, an unhappy, retired balloon salesman whose beloved wife died too soon. The opening montage will find you holding back tears, and the turning point of the film – those who have seen it know what I’m talking about – is masterful in its timing and emotional impact.

What makes “Up” even more fascinating is that it succeeds with such disparate elements at its disposal. It’s part fantasy (the elderly superhero elements, the balloon conceit), part serialized adventure flick (Charles Muntz, the biplanes), part science fiction (the dogs), part classic mismatched sidekick movie and part love story (and even that is done in an odd way, as Carl’s beloved Ellie is primarily embodied in the couple’s floating house).That Docter was able to shape all of these genres into something other than a mishmash is surprising enough. That he created out of these elements a story with the depth, humor and meaning that “Up” has is almost unbelievable. If you haven’t seen this one, do so as soon as you can.

Special Jury Prize: 500 Days of Summer
Director: Marc Webb
Starring: Zooey Deschanel, Joseph Gordon-Levitt

This film, about 500 days of rocky relationship is interesting, and it certainly bears watching, but there’s an inexorable gloominess that hangs over it that makes it hard to love. It’s also all a bit too intentional.

There are some nice things here. It’s well acted, and you really do like both Deschanel and Gordon Levitt’s characters. It’s also done in an interesting non-linear style. I did like it, but there are a few things holding me back from a wholehearted recommendation.

For one thing, the soundtrack (including, most notably, two Regina Spektor songs), the dialogue and some of the shooting practically and almost cynically bashes you over the head with the fact that the film was clearly made for indie kids. Also, the non-linear style makes the movie a bit morose, as we’re never fully able to focus on the good parts of the couple’s relationship. The depression is only added to when you realize that one of the characters doesn’t believe in love, while the other believes in it but truly has no idea what it means. Check it out if you're looking for something unique, but be prepared for a bit of a downer.

Worst Movie: Year One

Jack Black and Michael Cera do their worst in this uninspired, crass and unfunny “comedy” about cavemen in Bible times. Geez, Mike, between your acting choices and "Sit Down, Shut Up," I'm almost afraid for the "Arrested Development" movie.

Top Five Books or Book Series that I Read for the First Time in 2009:
There are so many great books to read that I rarely get around to reading stuff that came out in the current year, and 2009 was no exception. Here are the best things I did read, however.

5. Y: The Last Man
By Brian K. Vaughan, Pia Guerra

Before I give you my review, let me just say that this book is very R-rated, mostly to its detriment. Some of the content is understandable from a story perspective, but much of it is not.

Problems aside, however, this graphic novel tale of a plague that wipes out all but one male human is a compelling, poignant, well written tale, and it even slips in some clever social commentary and good jokes. Check this one out if you can stand language, violence and other content.

4. Starman Saga (if you're checking it out, look up Starman Omnibus)
By James Robinson, Tony Harris, others

To be fair, I’ve only read through the first two volumes of the omnibus so far, but Robinson’s Starman, Jack Knight, is in my mind the only major competition with Batman in the DC Universe.

The visuals are unique, the writing is crisp and the story is unpredictable. Jack Knight is a reluctant superhero, but in an entirely new way: he almost finds heroics annoying, and he never lets the mantle of Starman become his driving persona.

This series also gets props for prominently featuring The Shade, unquestionably the coolest antihero I’ve ever seen in a comic book.

3. ‘Til We Have Faces
By C.S. Lewis

It’s not Lewis’ best work (look to “The Screwtape Letters” or the oft-overlooked “That Hideous Strength” for that), but this first person retelling of the Greek myth of Cupid and Psyche is one of his most unique.

The story almost defies a brief description, but the central theme is that of the justice and manifestation of God. That Lewis can, as usual, so wonderfully pull it off is a testament to his skills, as this is an idea I can not imagine any other Christian writer tackling.

2. Catch 22
By Joseph Heller

This weird, run-on sentence laden, rambling narrative succeeds where the same style in “The Catcher in the Rye” fails. Yossarian, the protagonist in this strange WWII comedy, is a singularly lazy and self-centered character, but we root for him anyway. The book is a bit self indulgent and sometimes a bit too off kilter (there’s also some sexual bits that some will not want to read), but it fires back with a joke again and again. Come on: the book’s best character is named Major Major Major Major. I think I’ll be a little forgiving.

1. The Harry Potter Series
By J.K. Rowling

I never knew until this summer: these books really are that good. I had always dismissed them as pop literature, but I was simply wrong. The first four books are wonderful children’s literature, with characters and situations rivaling the whimsy and charm of the Narnia books, and the last three books transcend the genre into … I’m not entirely sure, really. Somewhere much more mature, where Rowling creates an unbreakable mood of tension, oppression and real danger.

It’s interesting, really. I, who used to dismiss the HP books, now sometimes defend them from friends who read and liked them, “but not that much.” I don’t really care. This is one series I’d love to read again for the first time.

Top 10 Most Heard Albums of 2009:
Most of what I listen to isn’t exactly new. Here’s what it exactly was.

1. “Stringtown,” by Jars of Clay
2. “The Long Fall Back To Earth,” by Jars of Clay
3. “The Beatles” (The White Album), by The Beatles
4. “Blue on Blue,” by Leigh Nash
5. “Far,” by Regina Spektor
6. “Keep Color,” by Republic Tigers
7. “Rocket Man: Number Ones,” by Elton John
8. “Forget And Not Slow Down,” by Relient k
9. “Ellipse,” by Imogen Heap
10. “The Man Comes Around,” by Johnny Cash (listen to this. It’s so good)

Thanks for reading my list. Sorry if it seemed a little rushed. Please comment with agreements, disagreements, suggestions, etc. Also, stay tuned: coming up (hopefully) soon on this blog will be two best of the decade lists, as well as a "series so far" entry on the TV show "Lost."

Here's what I've been doing instead of writing this blog

2009-12-02T11:22:00.002-06:00

Not that most of you care, but the reason I've not been writing anything lately is threefold. First, I've been writing a book for National Novel Writing Month, and I just finished three days ago. Second, I've been rewatching Lost like a madman so I can do the pre-final-season recap. Third, I've been reading the webcomic Achewood furiously, and I think that if I could rewrite my Ten Best list, I've move it to number two, right under Dino Comics.

Here's what I will be writing soon, however.

The Lost list: Best and worst characters, moments, episodes, mysteries, the works.

Best of the decade: the ten best albums and movies of the first decade of the millenium. And, unlike the silly NME list, the friggin strokes are nowhere to be found.

Best of the year: the second annual.

Review of the Christmas Carol: Maybe.

Brief notes

2009-10-09T20:18:00.003-05:00

I have been listening to, beginning to listen to and trying to listen to a fair amount of new/semi-new music lately, but I have been a bit lazy/busy as of late, so I'm going to give a series of updates and mini-reviews to clear up my backlog for an essay on indie music I've been meaning to write.

Listening to:

"Ellipse," by Imogen Heap
The electronically enhanced melodies of Heap's voice are often quite lovely, and the easy-listening feel is often punctuated by a surprising urgency and infectiousness. Most of the music might not be "real," but that doesn't detract from its beauty. This album will probably be on my albums of the year list, and "Swoon" might be the year's best song.

"Far," by Regina Spektor
While her intentional oddity might turn some people off, there is an overwhelming sense of buoyancy about this album that makes it both catchy and charming. I also find "Laughing With" to be quite thought provoking.

"Wild Young Hearts," by The Noisettes
I first heard about this band after hearing the absolutely fantastic "Never Forget You" on the radio, and I hoped for an equally fantastic album (their debut is of a completely different -- and not very good -- style). It's not a superb release, but it's growing on me. One of the things I appreciate the most about it is its intentional desire to feel like a throwback to some of of the 60's greatest female African-American artists, most notably Diana Ross. There's plenty of fun stuff here, too.

"Church Music," by David Crowder Band
Though it's not nearly as cohesive, lyrically inspired or original as the band's benchmark "A Collision," it's just as musically inventive and even more technically executed. It is very long and cut to seem like a continuous take, which can make it seem rambling at times, but the band's deft ability to change genres mid-album keeps things interesting. The two prog-rock songs at the end are must-listens.

Beginning to listen to:

"The Incident," by Porcupine Tree
This is a long album, and I've lacked time to listen to the whole thing, but I really like what I've heard. The lyrics are their usual blend of clever and thought provoking, and the music -- most of which consists of different segments of a long song -- is varied and ripe for immersion. While I prefer the pre-metal days of the band to the "In Absentia" and beyond releases, Steven Wilson & Co. still manage to consistently create admirable albums.

Wanting to listen to:

"I and Love and You," by The Avett Brothers
I've only heard two songs by this band, but both are fantastic examples of jangly folk-rock, and I'm a big fan of the vocals. Check them out.

"My Old, Familiar Friend," by Brendan Benson
Again, I've only heard the opening single "A Whole Lot Better," but I'm excited to hear more.

And lastly, after hearing John Lennon's "Mind Games" on the radio today, I wish to renew my quest to find out which of The Beatles would have made it as solo acts if not for the success of their original band. Paul would have succeeded without question, I'm thinking no with Ringo, and I'm not sure about George and John (although I'm leaning "no" with Mr. Lennon). We'll see what happens.

Relient k does the breakup album

2009-10-08T16:15:00.003-05:00

I've been awaiting Relient k's new album, "Forget and Not Slow Down," with cautious optimism. As I explained in a recent post, I hoped to see a move away from the poppier sounds of their last EP and album and a move back to frontman Matt Thiessen's consistently creative lyrics. In a nutshell, I wrote, "[the new album] needs to showcase how talented the band is rather than how talented it could be." Well, Oct. 6 has come and gone. How does the new album hold up? Quite well, actually.

The first and most obvious feature is yet another genre switch. The powerpop of their last two albums is all but gone, replaced by some throwback punk-lite (most reminiscent of the band's third album "Two Lefts Don't Make a Right ... But Three Do"), some full-blown rock and even a sizable helping of folk-rock.

The first and title track kicks things off with some classic-if-forgettable Relient k sounds, but it sets the tone for the remainder of the album: this is a melancholy, yet hopeful, reflection on Thiessen's breakup with his girlfriend. While this is borne out in the lyrics (more on those later), the band crafts the musical framework to reflect the subject matter, and many songs have a rather wistful feel to them. The title track is followed by "I Don't Need a Soul," "Candlelight," "Therapy" and "Part of It." The placement of all of the songs seems good, a tribute to the band's ability to seamlessly transition between songs of drastically different genres. Much of the transition is aided by a musical device new to Relient k: song outros, specifically "Flare" (after "Candlelight") and "Outro" (after "Part of It").

"Forget..." as an album is an exercise in buildup, and the second half ups the ante, starting with the melodic "Over It." Then comes the fantastic combination of the rocking "Sahara" and the mellow "Savannah," bridged by the interlude "Oasis" and closed by the odd "Baby." It's rare to hear musical interludes used as well as they are here, and it ends up being one of the album's strongest points. After the "Saharah"/"Savannah" combo comes the power ballad "If You Believe Me" and the climactic closer "This is the End," followed by the piano-laden "(If You Want It)" another outro (but only kind of. It's actually about as long as the song it closes).

Musically, it's the most cohesive the band has ever been. There may not be as many "moments" as there are on their fourth (and best) album, "Mmhmm," but "Forget..." is consistently enjoyable throughout, and the genre-switching combined with the continuous flow makes for a lasting musical impression. It's also nice to see a departure from the electronic sounds that marked parts of their last two releases. While they were often used to good effect, the more natural sound of this record (which, the band reports, only used "real instruments") is a refreshing change.

"Forget..." doesn't disappoint lyrically, either. It's hands down the best written thing the band has released since "Mmhmm," and while it may not as often reach the heights of tracks like "When I Go Down" or "Life After Death and Taxes," some of Thiessen's best writing is here, from the melancholy "I Don't Need a Soul" to the playful "Candlelight" to the poignant "(If You Want It)."

Thematically, the lyrics are diametrically opposed to "Five Score and Seven Years Ago," the band's last album proper. While the former album is fully of bouncy love songs to Thiessen's then-girlfriend, "Forget..." speaks almost exclusively of dealing with that relationship's aftermath. However, Thiessen manages to walk this oft-tread upon ground without relying on cliches, refusing to fall completely into the "so over it" or the "woe is me" categories. Rather, the wistful music complements the wistful lyrics, surveying a relationship with an end that was painful (and not entirely forgotten) but also probably for the best.

This lyrical maturity is still complemented by Thiessen's trademark clever rhyming, and no song ever dips even close to the repetitiveness and poor quality that plagued recent songs like "Give Until There's Nothing Left" or "I Just Want You To Know." Thiessen seems to be saying that he wants to keep growing lyrically while retaining the aspects of his songwriting that have always worked.

In fact, that seems to be one of the messages of the album as a whole. While some classic Relient k sounds are certainly retained, the band seems to be putting their greater independence (they are now signed with and partially manage Gotee's indie music imprint, Mono vs. Stereo) to good use.

In short: Relient k has definitely exceeded my expectations. While "Forget and Not Slow Down" might not be quite as good as "Mmhmm," it sure comes close.

"The Invention of Lying" is both funny and flat

2009-10-05T19:29:00.006-05:00

Imagine a world in which no one ever lies. Not only do they never lie, but they have no concept what a "lie" is. It reminds one of the eyeless Aunt Beast from "A Wrinkle in Time." If someone has never seen, how can he understand what seeing is? So it is with the denizens of "The Invention of Lying's" version of Earth: they have no word for truth because, for them, the truth truly is self-evident. There are no lies, no polite untruths, no deceptions, no fiction and, as an unintended consequence, little politeness, as complete honesty also means utter frankness. It is an altogether more depressing, if less confusing, place to live in.

It is a very depressing place indeed for Mark Bellison (Ricky Gervais, who also wrote and directed the film), a scriptwriter at Lecture Films, a film company that only produces historical scripts read by professional readers because fiction is unheard of and it would not be truthful to have actors play the parts of the historical characters (not that the characters recognize this. They just never have thought otherwise). Mark is rather overweight and ugly, which ruins his date with Anna (Jennifer Garner), who likes him but would never want to procreate with him because his genes would not make for attractive kids. He is also stuck with the unenviable job of writing scripts for the 14th century at work. Since no one wants to see a lecture film about The Black Plague, he is soon fired, but not before his secretary and one of his coworkers give him a brutally honest appraisal of their feelings towards him.

Things are certainly looking down for Mark, until he goes to the bank and the teller asks him how much money he has in his bank account (he planned to withdraw the entire amount, as he was about to get evicted from his apartment). While he only has $300, he discovers that he can tell the teller that he has $800 dollars. Since she has known from birth that everything that anyone ever tells her is correct, she simply assumes that there is a computer error and gives him the money.

Mark is thunderstruck. He has an incredible new ability, one that he doesn't even have a word to describe. His friends don't even understand what he's trying to explain to them, which leads to an amusing scene in which he tells them increasingly outrageous lies about himself which they believe without question or even much surprise.

When he realizes that he can lie with complete impunity, he immediately sets out to benefit himself as much as possible. This takes up the majority of the movie, and it never gets boring, thanks to the cast's ability to play their honest innocence completely straight and Gervais' nearly flawless comedic timing. Indeed, after seeing him in this movie and last year's criminally unappreciated "Ghost Town," I'd say that he joins fellow "Office"-terrible-boss-actor Steve Carell on the very top of the heap of modern comedic actors. The majority of the film plays like a long, brilliant Monty Python sketch, with the actors and their surroundings (including buildings, advertisements and even epitaphs) never missing a beat in their odd little world. The film even touches on philosophical points like our basic need for self-deception and the little white lies that each of us tell every day, all the while recognizing that in the end, the comedy is what's most important.

Until, that is, about halfway through the film, when Mark's mother is on her deathbed.

You see, it turns out that there is no religion in the land of truth, and Mark's mum is terrified of "an eternity of nothingness." Mark is heartbroken, and to comfort his mother in her final moments, he tells her that death is not the end and that after she dies she will go to a happy place where she will be with all of the people she loved. Unfortunately for Mark, his mother's doctors hear his fib, and the world soon waits at his doorstep, eager to hear from him about his afterlife revelation. What follows is a long scene in which Gervais, a lifelong atheist, makes up a story about "the man in the sky" and in so doing takes shot after shot after shot at any and all religions, all but abandoning the cleverness and subtlety that made the film's outrageous moments shine all the more.

After the aforementioned scene, the film regains some of its comic footing, but every now and then Gervais feels the need to take another cheap shot at a God that he doesn't believe in. To call it a satire or an argument against religion is laughable, as even moderately intelligent people should realize that all Gervais is doing is setting up straw men that he can immediately knock down. At times, it almost seems like Gervais is angry at God for supposed injustices but hasn't taken the time to figure out who this God really is or why He does the things that he does.

Even here, the film can be funny, although to laugh at some of these jokes will make most religious people a bit uncomfortable, and even the non-religious should be able to see past Gervais' rather sophomoric and vindictive gibes. But perhaps the most disappointing thing is to see such a poorly thought-out "message" shoehorned into what is otherwise one of the funniest movies I've seen in a long time (and one that is still worth viewing, if you are willing to sit through the heavy-handed moments).

Gervais is essentially preaching to the choir here. Anyone but the most staunch of atheists should be able to see that his "man in the sky" nonsense is not an accurate or even satirical look into the way Christians or anyone else thinks. In fact, the chillingly sad death scene of Mark's mother seems like a far better window into the mind of an atheist than any view of the religious that the film purports to offer. After all, if we are truly all that there is, what is there to hope for?

It's not music, it's not muzak, it's Muse-ic

2009-09-16T20:22:00.004-05:00

I'm not really sure how I missed out on Muse until this year. They are, after all, one of the most popular rock bands in Europe, if not the most popular. However, I can be a bit behind with the musical times (I'm still trying to figure out what this whole "Coldplay" business is about), so perhaps it's not that surprising that I never really listened to Muse until my friend Jacob introduced them to me in January. I'm still catching up on their back catalogue (I'm not that familiar with "Showbiz" or "The Origin of Symmetry" yet), but I absolutely love the marriage of technical ability and raw energy that is showcased on "Absolution" and "Black Holes and Revelations." With their latest album, "The Resistance," I was hoping for more of the marriage and more of the variety that keeps their other releases fresh and distinct.

I'm not entirely sure what I got, exactly.

I am sure that the album is flawed, but I'm also sure that the album is a great display of musicianship. I'm sure that the album is pretentiously epic, but I'm also quite positive that sometimes that works. Let me explain.

The first of the two most noticeable flaws in the album is the rather languid pace of almost every single song. It's almost a subconscious thing, but it's one that greatly affects the replay value. As I said before, "Absolution and "BHAR" both abounded with an unbridled verve that ripped through their fast-paced songs (see, for example, "Hysteria") and writhed just beneath the surface of their more laid back songs ("Starlight," "Supermassive Black Hole"). With "The Resistance," it seems like just the opposite. A musical haze seems to have settled over the arrangements this time around, with even the more energetic songs sounding like they could use a shot in the arm. A notable example of this is the first track and first single "Uprising," which, for all of its fight-the-power spirit and chunky guitar riffs, feels like it should pack a little bit more of a punch.

The other flaw that is immediately apparent is the attitude that the musical proceedings of the album's 54 minutes are big news. Every flourish seems to be an epic event to be accompanied by a choir and strings, many of the tracks have lyrics that vaguely suggest fighting the man (ironic considering the band's very in-the-mainstream status), and even the names of the songs suggest a bunch of pretentious art students dismissing the Philistines who dare to question their work. Seriously, "The United States of Eurasia," "Undisclosed Desires," "Unnatural Selection"? Tell me that doesn't sound like an abstract painting display, I dare you.

However, the album is not without its charm. Muse is still Muse, so you can expect quality arrangements and impressive musical chops. The album also gets better (and a bit more energetic) as it progresses, with the languor-free "MK Ultra" being a late highlight. The three part rock "symphony" is appropriately impressive, and I'm sure I will appreciate it even more with repeated listens (it purportedly features the talents of something like 40 different musicians). Is it in the range of greatness inhabited by the likes of "Absolution" and "BHAR"? No. Is it still worth a spin on the CD player once in a while? For sure.

In a way, there is a lone feature of the album that summarizes both its positive and negative aspects. That epic power ballads are the bread and butter of Muse is no question; indeed, some of the most over-the-top grandiose moments on the album (see the inner-Queen-coming-out "...Eurasia") are also the most fun. However, the complete abandonment of any sort of musical modesty on "The Resistance" makes for an album that almost wears you out and at times borders on self-parody. Muse has made good music many times before. This time, they've settled for good Muse-ic.

Thoughts on the future of Relient k

2009-09-12T19:26:00.006-05:00

Relient k is an interesting band. The five-piece group, led by frontman Matt Thiessen, has shown marked musical progression since its mostly-bad-but-still-occasionally-charming eponymous debut album in 2000, and the band's commitment to release new music every year (a commitment that has only been broken once) means that there's always something new to listen to. The band's rise in proficiency is well documented, and Thiessen & Co.'s upward trending musical ability is matched by a simultaneous but gradual transition in the band's genre, progressing from garage punk to punk/pop to slick powerpop.

In short, Relient k has not been content with rehashing previous albums, and each release showcases a group that has grown more technical and production-savvy since the last outing. Thiessen's deft songwriting ability should put the icing on the cake of a band that has the chops to be successful without being dull and popular without being the lowest common denominator. And yet, their upcoming album, "Forget and Not Slow Down," may be the last RK album that I ever purchase.

There are a few reasons that my enthusiasm for the band has waned a bit. One reason might be as simple as the fact that it's not the same band that I went through high school with. The band's "classic lineup" began to disintegrate after their fourth (and best) album, 2004's "Mmhmm," with the departure of the original bassist, Brian Pittman. Longtime drummer Dave Douglas left after their next album, and the one-two departures (and the three replacements they spawned) have made the band seem like a revolving door of backups to Thiessen. Add that to the fact that the new members were already notable in the Christian music scene prior to their RK tenure, with resumes that include the likes of the Supertones, Audio Adrenaline, Ace Troubleshooter and others and sometimes it feels like a Christianized version of The All-Starr Band.

Another reason is that I'm not the same person who listened to Relient k in high school. While I would reject the notion that all of the band's music is targeted at the high school demographic, it's undeniable that most of their first three albums and much of their later work has appealed to that age group. I still appreciate Thiessen's inventive turns of phrase, but I don't always appreciate the subjects whose phrases he's turning. Likewise, as I progressed through college, my musical horizons continued to broaden. While I certainly recognize that the band is proficient at the mildly-fuzzy, radio friendly punk-lite of their early work, it's just not something that I'm that into anymore.

However, the primary reason that I'm contemplating leaving the RK fold after "Forget..." is that, though the band remains talented, it has not lived up to its potential.

The year is 2004. Relient k has released "Mmhmm" to much success, due in part to their decision to co-sign with Capitol Records in addition to their small Christian label, Gotee. The album is home to many current concert staples, including "Life After Death and Taxes," "I So Hate Consequences" and, of course, "Be My Escape." But it is more than just a commercial milestone for the group. It marks a transition in style and songwriting.

Thiessen had always been clever, but the lyrics on "Mmhmm" packed an emotional punch that was never reached in his prior work. With few exceptions, gone were the songs about 80s pop culture and... well, no, 80s pop culture about covered most of their silly songs, now that I think about it. In those songs' place were honest, insightful rockers covering the shortcomings that everyone faces. "Mmhmm" ended up being just what Relient k needed: it shot them to national prominence while establishing them as a band with musical chops and lyrical skill (for their genre, anyway). Their success allowed them more flexibility in the studio and more recognition from producers. That means better music, right?

Well, no, but it does mean better produced music. In 2007, the band released "Five Score and Seven Years Ago," which, while undeniably well executed, still seemed to come up short. The shortcomings of the album were only highlighted in the double album length "EP" of 2008, "The Bird and the Bee Sides" (attentive readers will note that this disc made my five best list of 2008. Subsequent listens have soured me on it to a certain extent).

The most obvious shortcoming is the fact that Thiessen often seems to undergo mental lapses in his writing. I'm not sure if I've ever come across another album that contains such a contrast between lyrical brilliance and lyrical dregs as "Five Score" does. Yet, as odd as it seems, "Deathbed," an 11 minute ballad that eloquently examines the life of a dying man, exists only seven tracks away from "Give Until There's Nothing Left," a sappy, simplistic throwaway that Thiessen had no business writing at all, let alone placing on an album.

The contrast remained on "The Bird...," with songs like "Curl Up and Die" and "The Stenographer" showcasing Thiessen's abilities while clunkers like "The Lining is Silver," "There Was Another Time in My Life" and "I Just Want You to Know" simultaneously undermined them. These tracks are repetitive and trite and seem like better produced songs from the band's infancy.

It's obvious that Thiessen is capable of consistently good songwriting. Perhaps he has become a little too self-confident in his talents, presuming that whatever flows from his pen is lyrical gold. I hope he wises up soon. I'm not too keen on albums where I consistently skip three tracks or more because of cruddy writing.

The other way that the band has failed to live up to its potential is its genre choice since "Mmhmm." While "Mmhmm" was their most energetic and riff-laden album yet, "Five Score" saw a foray into pop music that showed no signs of stopping when "The Bird..." came out. Now, there's nothing wrong with well-executed pop, and Relient k does execute it well, but their last two releases have sounded, as a general rule, just like any other band who can write well-executed pop. Their recent success has given them more musical flexibility, and they have responded by becoming more color-inside-the-lines commercial. They've reached a point where their popularity would survive and probably thrive in risk-taking, but instead they've taken no real risks. Their music sounds great, but there are fewer great sounds.

So, what does "Forget and Not Slow Down" need to do to hold my interest in Thiessen & Co.? Simple: it needs to showcase how talented the band is rather than how talented it could be. I want solid, creative lyrics and musical twists throughout. Maybe rock a little harder. They certainly are capable of it.

I'm cautiously hopeful that they will come through. The title track is up on Myspace, and it's not anything super-special, but the album blurb promises a more organic, rockier album than the past two efforts. Thiessen also advertises thoughtful lyrics, the result of sequestering himself in a backwoods lake house for over two months. The ingredients are there, but are the boys up to using them well?

We'll find out on October 6.

Ten Best: Webcomics

2009-07-08T21:40:00.011-05:00

Let's face it: newspaper comics just aren't what they used to be. Granted, it's not as if they're a cultural wasteland or anything - Zits, Dilbert, Get Fuzzy, Non Sequitur and what's left of Foxtrot all have at least occasional flashes of genius - but formats for comics have gotten much more strict (read: confining and small) since the days of Krazy Kat and the like. Add that to the fact that the two greatest cartoonists of the 90s - the aesthetic groundbreaker Bill Watterson (Calvin and Hobbes), and the king of absurdity Gary Larson (The Far Side) - have left the scene, and you get a comics page that is dominated by the likes of Cathy, Mutts, Beetle Bailey, and the once-funny Garfield: rigid, formulaic strips that substitute an "Aack!" or a fourth wall sarcastic glance for a joke.

If the rise of webcomics is any indication, a generation accustomed to Internet use agrees with me. The Internet's freedom to self-publish breaks down many of the boundaries that newspaper comics function within.

Webcomics have several advantages over their print-based counterparts, most of which can be summed up in two categories: form and content. The form (ie: graphical elements, size, presentation and even animation) is restricted only by bandwidth and the cartoonist's imagination and skill, and the content (ie: subject matter and dialogue) is entirely up to the comic's creator. Content's non-restriction also enables more niche humor to be published, and many webcomics devoted to nerds or videogames or what have you have enjoyed much success online. However, this virtually unlimited freedom does have one major drawback: the vast majority of webcomics suck.

Oh sure, there's a fair share of gems out there (hence this list), but even some of the more popular comics (Ctrl+Alt+Delete, just to name one of many) are terrible. Having an editor may mean that you can't publish everything, but it also means that you can't publish just anything. How, then, can you expect to successfully navigate the hostile deserts of webcomicdom to find the sweet oases of good comics? Simple; just read this list.

First, however, I have a couple of disclaimers. These are not the only good webcomics out there. Some readers may be unhappy that a couple of their favorites (mostly I am thinking of Penny Arcade) didn't make the list, but that doesn't mean I am consigning them to the Internet dumpheap. Since most of you (wink) have good taste, it most likely it means that I find the humor just a little bit too specific or inconsistent. The other disclaimer is that the tearing down of content restrictions means that most of the comics on this list have at least some content that could be deemed offensive, be it swearing, sexual humor, etc. There are a couple that are perhaps more offensive than the others here, and I will point those out, but be forewarned that webcomics are, in general, not for those who can't stand language or suggestiveness. OK, enough of this; on to the list!

In order to better describe the types of humor you might encounter in these comics, I have arbitrarily set up a genre classification system for them (yes, I know that there are other kinds, but no "soap opera" or biographical strips will be appearing on this list). A "storyline" comic is a comic in which the humor is derived from the cast of characters and an ongoing story arc of their predicaments. "Punchline" comics are obviously more traditional. "Situational" comics are ones in which the joke is in the set-up and the setting rather than a defined punchline, and "surrealist" comics are those in which the humor is derived from sheer weirdness or shock value.

10. Thinkin' Lincoln
Author: Miles Grover
Style: surrealist, punch-line

Thinkin' Lincoln is a comic about the daily adventures of a group of historical figures' anachronistic talking heads. While many historical and not-so-historical figures appear frequently throughout the comic, Thinkin' Lincoln's main focus is reserved for Abraham Lincoln, a simplistic and overenthusiastic nitwit, George Washington, Abe's snide rival, and Queen Elizabeth II, a kind of motherly figure for the other characters. The comic is also frequently visited by the likes of Freud, Darwin, Otto Von Bismark, Poe and other weirder characters like Skeleton Shakespeare and Zombie Mark Twain (both exactly what they sound like).

While a lot of the humor is derived merely from these famous characters spouting clearly uncharacteristic dialogue, Grover often goes one step further and invokes the true historical facts about these people, creating a humorous mishmash.

Recommended for: history buffs, people who like Monty Python
Favorites: http://www.thinkin-lincoln.com/index.php?strip_id=261, http://www.thinkin-lincoln.com/index.php?strip_id=876, http://www.thinkin-lincoln.com/index.php?strip_id=838

9. Terror Island
Authors: Ben Heaton and Lewis Powell
Style: storyline, surrealist

Terror Island has probably the weirdest premise of the comics on this list. It is a photocomic dealing primarily with the struggles of two roommates who are both determined to get the other one to buy groceries. Also, almost all of the characters are played by pieces from popular board games. While this probably doesn't sound like a premise that could keep a comic afloat, the subplots and arcs become pretty complex and surprisingly hilarious. My favorite character is Jame, so named because he thinks that "James" is plural.

Recommended for: Fans of deadpan, Demetri Martin style comedy
Favorites: You've got to read this one from the beginning to grasp the humor. Since the comic came to a close after strip 300, it shouldn't be that hard to finish.

8. Unwinder's Tall Comics
Author: Eli Parker, alias Parker Wilson
Style: situational

Unwinder is a kid (possibly alien?) from Minnesota who is an over-the-top-satire of the pop culture saturated indie guy. Everything he does is a conscious effort to appear cool and different (that is, everything that doesn't involve harassing his friend Barbecue Sauce). While Parker usually sets his sights on self-congratulating preeners, no cultural bastion is safe from his pen, be it corny science fiction novels, gossip tabloids, or Tag body spray. However, the most distinctive feature of this comic is its height. It is, as the name suggests, a very tall comic.

While there is a kind of demented genius behind much of this comic, it loses points for an inconsistent update schedule (I know, I know, Eli, you have an actual job) and the fact that some comics are just so completely out of left field that they're less funny than confusing. Still, however, a solid comic (and he updates it more frequently than he sent The Column his newspaper comics, so there's that too).

Recommended for: people who have indie friends or who know a lot about pop culture
Favorites: http://tallcomics.com/index.php?strip_id=6, http://tallcomics.com/index.php?strip_id=32 (really, anytime he writes script treatments are completely worthwhile), http://tallcomics.com/index.php?strip_id=25

7. Achewood
Author: Chris Onstad
Style: surrealist, storyline

WARNING: This strip is one of a couple wherein the humor can become entirely inappropriate, and if you are unwilling to sift, then this comic is definitely not for you (in fact, if you are not willing to sift, do not even go to the comic that is on the main page at the time of posting). However, if you are willing to sift, Achewood will certainly yield some gems.

Achewood is a comic about a large friend/acquaintance group of animals and other creatures/robots/etc (many of whom were originally stuffed animals, although it is unclear whether that is still canon or not) who embark on sundry adventures and absurd exploits. The backlog for this comic is immense, and it's probably best if you start reading from the beginning.

The highlight of this strip is its ability to evoke hilarity from complete and utter absurdity. Many times, I have finished laughing at a strip only to wonder how Onstad even thought to combine the strange pairings of dialogue, characters and setting. And it's not just a giant Python skit either. Most of the main characters are very well developed and even have motivation behind their actions (some of them even have in-character blogs loosely maintained by Onstad). If you don't mind a rotten apple every so often, this is definitely a strip to check out.

Recommended for: fans of the Douglas Adams style of developed absurdity
Favorites: It would take me far too long to search through the backlogs for my favorites, and I haven't even read the whole comic. I would recommend starting at (or at least toward) the beginning.

6. Pictures for Sad Children
Author: John Campell
Style: surrealist, situational

This is an odd comic that the author describes as being "about a bad feeling you get when you are feeling good, or a good feeling you get when you are feeling bad." It's (almost) all in greyscale, with no caps and sometimes no obvious punchline. That being said, it's sometimes hit and miss, but when it's good, it's pretty darn funny.

PFSC started out mainly as a comic about a ghost named Paul, although the character and his storyline have mostly been abandoned in favor of short, unrelated storylines or one-offs. When the comic is at its best, it points out weird ways of seeing everyday things or just revels in absurd situations. When it's not at its best, it can be boring or offensive, so be forewarned. However, the good here definitely outweighs the bad.

Recommended for: people who are too introspective
Favorites: http://picturesforsadchildren.com/index.php?comicID=28 (this is in the middle of a storyline, but I love it), http://picturesforsadchildren.com/index.php?comicID=237, http://picturesforsadchildren.com/index.php?comicID=257

5. Perry Bible Fellowship
Author: Nicholas Gurewitch
Style: surrealist

Once again, be forewarned: this is far and away the most offensive comic I have linked to. You absolutely should not browse this website if you are not OK with viewing some things that will offend you. That being said, it is also occasionally genius and frequently hilarious.

Gurewitch draws and writes (well, drew and wrote; the comic is essentially defunct now) the comic in a variety of different styles and about a variety of things, all intended to shock or surprise the reader into laughter. His range and ability to mesh different ideas is usually quite impressive, unless it is offensive (which, as I said, it can be, and even then it still can be pretty funny).

Recommended for: fans of The Onion (particularly the news videos) and Monty Python
Favorites: http://www.pbfcomics.com/?cid=PBF210-Wishing_Well.gif, http://www.pbfcomics.com/?cid=PBF149-Svens_Revenge.jpg, http://www.pbfcomics.com/?cid=PBF084-No_Survivors.gif (shock value on display here)

4. Daisy Owl
Author: Ben Driscoll
Style: storyline, situational

Daisy Owl is a year-old comic dealing with the daily lives of an owl named Mr. Owl, his two (human) kids Daisy and Cooper, and Mr. Owl's polar bear friend Steve. These four frequently interact with other members of their weird universe, including Steve's grizzly bear brother, a magician who does very little actual magic and the giant queen bee in the honey research lab in which Steve and Mr. Owl are sometimes employed.

The comic has a charm that rivals most of the best newspaper comics, and each of the main characters has a distinct personality that you could almost imagine inhabiting a close friend. Indeed, that is one of the main draws of the strip: the world of Daisy Owl, minus a few surreal elements like the honey lab and the fact that most of the cast is comprised of anthropomorphous animals, seems very much like our own, only slightly nicer and just a bit exaggerated for comical reasons. If you give this comic a chance (I would recommend reading from the beginning), I'd be willing to bet that you'll soon be taken in by the clever writing and humorously quaint characters.

Recommended for: fans of clever-but-charming newspaper strips
Favorites: http://daisyowl.com/comic/2008-09-29 (no one understands why I enjoy this so much, but I just do, ok?), http://daisyowl.com/comic/2009-06-29 (background: this is from an origin story of the characters. Cooper and Daisy have just crash landed in a rocket outside of Mr. Owl's tree), http://daisyowl.com/comic/2009-05-08

3. Wondermark
Author: David Malki ! (yes, he always includes an exclamation mark after his name)
Style: punchline, surrealist

This is an odd one. The panels are mostly cobbled together from illustrations found in Malki's extensive antique book collection. The humor is almost always derived from the anachronistic juxtaposition of modern-day language onto the old and oftentimes unexplainable illustrations.

This website is fascinating to me because, in addition to being hilarious, Malki is also very clearly intellectual. He occasionally publishes essays on his under-the-comic blog, and he used to publish brilliant and funny critiques of popular newspaper comics, the archives of which are still available on his site here. This is definitely one to check out.

Recommended for: anyone who is able to appreciate jokes both historical and flatulence-related. It's a very broad comic.
Favorites: http://wondermark.com/463/ (make sure to read the alternate panels below this one), http://wondermark.com/218/, http://wondermark.com/508/

2. xkcd
Author: Randall Munroe
Style: situational, punchline

This is the one that started it all for me. I was only vaguely aware of what webcomics were until I clicked on a link to this strip. If you aren't a fan of Orson Scott Card, don't worry: this comic is so great because of its relatability.

While Munroe is a skilled writer who can conjure a ridiculous punchline just as well as the next guy, this strip is at its best when he's making fun of things that we've all subtly or unconsciously observed (and, in some cases, feared) in the world. His best humor comes when he points out things that we've never truly thought about but immediately recognize.

There are also a fair amount of math and computer jokes in this strip, and since I'm not a math buff (nor a huge computer buff), I usually find strips with those themes to be incomprehensible. However, if that's what you're into, you may like this strip even more than my number one choice.

Recommended for: nerds and obsessives of all kinds
Favorites: http://xkcd.com/245/, http://xkcd.com/310/, http://xkcd.com/346/

1. Dinosaur Comics
Author: Ryan North
Style: surrealist, situational, punchline

Dinosaur Comics is a hilariously written comic about the musings and ambitions of a t-rex named T-Rex. He is overly enthusiastic, vain, lazy, lacking in common sense and far too obsessed with the English language, but he is still a pretty good guy. He is joined in every strip by his friends Utahraptor and Dromiceiomimus, who often comment on his outrageous behavior or ideas.

The instantly noticeable quality of Dinosaur Comics is that it is a constrained comic, or one that operates under certain arbitrary artistic parameters. In DC's case, the parameter is that virtually all of the comics use the exact same art in the exact same panel order and formation (minus a few clip art additions in a few strips, and some alternate universe storylines in which the same art is used, only backwards). However, if you think that this approach would limit the creativity or humor in DC, you couldn't be more wrong.

North has published, at the time of writing, 1,511 comics. Minus a few guest comics, every single one of these comics has followed the exact same artistic structure, and the comic still manages to be the most hilarious comic on the World Wide Web. The secret is found in both the vague art and the ingenious writing.

If you look at the panels, you'll notice that any number of things could be going on in them, provided the proper contextual dialogue. Yes, T-Rex appears to be conversing with Utahraptor in the fourth and fifth panels, and he appears to be pretty enthusiastic in all six panels, but if the writer recognizes those artistic boundaries, he can shape the art to fit the dialogue. North is a hilarious writer, and every word that is said by any of the three characters (or by DC's versions of God and the devil, who also speak in the strips from time to time) fits perfectly. The topics DC covers range from philosophical and scientific difficulties to video games to grammar to historical facts to anything in between, all with a hilarious twist. If this doesn't get you laughing, something might be broken.

Recommended for: intellectual fans of absurdity
Favorites: http://www.qwantz.com/index.php?comic=584, http://www.qwantz.com/index.php?comic=1481, http://www.qwantz.com/index.php?comic=1380

Looking "Up"

2009-05-30T15:59:00.006-05:00

I've been a Pixar fan for a long time. The animation studio's knack for creating a truly engaging story out of unlikely premises is essentially unparalleled in today's film industry. And (my apologies to all of you who like the two "Toy Story" movies the best) they've generally just continued to improve.

However, none of their movies have been able to match the perfect blend of good writing, visual impressiveness, humor and message that was concocted in 2004's "The Incredibles." That movie, a tale of a family of discontented superheroes forced to keep their powers under wraps, is sharply written, animated with lush colors, funny at all the right times and able to deliver important messages about the importance of family and the need to keep the world from downplaying uniqueness (it also goes out of its way to pay some fun homages to several comics, most notably "Watchmen" and The Fantastic Four). While Pixar has served up genius both before (the "Toy Story" films, "Monsters Inc.") and after ("Ratatouille," "Wall-E") "The Incredibles," Brad Bird's directorial debut remained my favorite entry in the studio's lineup.

Until, possibly, now.

After the disappointing "Cars" (arguably even after the solid "Finding Nemo," with the exception of "Cars") Pixar has been less about making high-quality family entertainment and more about making high-quality, meaningful movies that will also entertain children. This shift saw the production of "Ratatouille," another Brad Bird movie about the proper treatment of greatness (also about a rat cooking things), and "Wall-E," an almost avant-garde work that belies the importance of human connection in an increasingly digital world. Both were well written and exquisitely animated ("Ratatouille" even received an Oscar nomination for Best Screenplay, and I have a quote from that film adorning the top of my blog), but Pixar's latest feature, "Up," manages to not only best the studio's last two outings, but perhaps even "The Incredibles."

I've never quite seen a movie like it. It attempts from start to finish to place one foot firmly in reality and the other just as solidly in fantasy, and it succeeds wholeheartedly. I'll attempt to give a brief synopsis without giving away any too much of the plot.

Carl Fredricksen was just a young, quiet, pudgy boy who dreamed of one day being an explorer in the vein of his childhood hero, a brilliant, fantastical (and apparently discredited) explorer named Charles Muntz. On the way back from a theatre newsreel detailing Muntz's latest exploits, Carl meets a girl who is, in many ways, his opposite: a tall, skinny, outgoing and loud girl named Ellie. Although the two couldn't be more different, they are united by Ellie's unabashed friendliness and a mutual love of Muntz and adventure stories in general. Following this childhood meeting, the film presents a touching montage of Carl and Ellie's life together, including their marriage, a tragedy and the bumps and pleasures of life. Carl is a balloon salesman, Ellie is a zookeeper, and the pair lives in the house in which they met. They are happy. Throughout it all, the couple attempts to save money to visit Paradise Falls, Peru, the site of the most legendary of Muntz's exploits.

Unfortunately, life repeatedly gets in the way of their dreams, and Ellie dies before such a trip can be taken. Carl becomes a grumpy recluse, content only while basking in the memory of his wife. Even this is bittersweet, as he feels just a bit guilty for not taking her to Paradise Falls like they'd always planned. Then, an uncomfortable accident occurs, and people begin to question whether the octogenarian can live on his own anymore, in his treasured house that is the last remaining symbol of his former happiness. It's very heady stuff for an animated film, but it's handled very skillfully here.

However, all of the above lays the groundwork for the actual events of the movie, which manage to simultaneously be one of the more outlandish yet simple stories Pixar has presented: Carl, faced with a nursing home, opts instead to rig a large amount of balloons to his house and fly to Paradise Falls as a tribute to Ellie. A young boy scout accidentally stows away, and the two embark on a series of jungle adventures, Carl most begrudgingly.

Even that brief description belies one of the most striking things about this film: its interplay between fantasy and reality. While Carl's tragedy and personality are presented as very serious and real, the vibrant colors and crazy characters surrounding him recall the Looney Tunes classics of old. He behaves like a man who has suffered real loss, but he attempts physical feats in the film that very few people, and certainly no one his age, would be able to do. So too, is the animation scaled back from the hyper-realism of the last two Pixar offerings. Here, the landscape is unbelievably lush, and the characters' appearances are clearly designed to accentuate personality traits.

However, rather than creating an awkward juxtaposition, the film benefits from the hodgepodge of styles. Carl's adventures serve as object lessons and metaphors for the way his life has turned out, but they also function as tributes to old adventure flicks and classic children's animation. At times, they become almost allegorical, because the film never loses sight of the fact that the real story to be told is the story of Carl's life: the beautiful love of a dedicated marriage, the sadness that comes when that union ends, and a reflection on what is really important. Ultimately, Carl's journey to Paradise Falls reveals to him that he didn't need to become an explorer to find fulfillment; rather, being thankful for what has passed and willing to embrace the future becomes an exciting exploration all its own.

"Up" is truly a well-made, touching film. I even cried during a couple of parts (you'll probably be able to guess where once you see it), and I rarely ever do that during a movie. Do I like it better than "The Incredibles"? I don't know; further viewings may tell.

Either way, it's simply great.

Excitement meets nostalgia in "State of Play"

2009-05-02T17:54:00.002-05:00

This is reposted from the April 23 issue of The Column.

I wasn’t expecting a lot. I had seen the trailer for “State of Play” a few times, and it looked interesting enough. There was a passing (and, I assumed, token) reference to journalism, so I told our feature editor Ben that we should go see it. Shortly thereafter, we got two free passes to a prescreening (just one perk of our prestigious – OK, not really – Column jobs), and soon we were waiting expectantly for the movie to begin.

What followed was a lot more than I had expected.

In the first few minutes of the film, two people in Washington D.C. are shot dead by a mysterious man with a metal briefcase. Soon thereafter, an important aide to a congressman is found dead, ruled suicide. The congressman tears up during his announcement of her death, and it soon becomes clear that the two were having an affair. All things considered, it is a busy day for The Washington Globe, where the scruffy but clever Cal McAffrey (Russell Crowe) works as an old school investigative journalist.

McAffrey is originally in charge of reporting the double murder (thought to be a routine drug killing), but the congressman in question, Stephen Collins (Ben Affleck), is an old college friend of his, and, after Collins comes to him with a claim that the aide was murdered, McAffrey wants the story covered properly. By properly, he mostly means “not by a blogger,” namely Della Frye (Rachel McAdams). Frye is a young “online journalist,” who sometimes annoys McAffrey because she’s more interested in the quick scoop than in fact checking. However, he senses some genuine enthusiasm for the truth in Frye, so he allows her to partner with him on the story while he teaches her some good old-fashioned journalistic method. Meanwhile, Collins is attempting to reconcile with his wife, all the while trying to hold down his position on a committee investigating alleged atrocities committed by a military contracting company. Are these events connected in any way? If so, who’s behind it all, and what will the consequences be for those who dare to uncover the plot?

To tell you much more about the film’s story would be both unnecessary and unfortunate, as “State of Play” is a movie best experienced with little sense of what’s going to happen next. Its circuitous plot twists and turns right through to the conclusion, but it also never stops making sense if you’re paying attention.

It’s clearly an intelligent film, and it’s one that expects its viewers to be intelligent as well. Terms like “collusive” pop up, and the viewer is expected to know or figure out what they mean. Ethical questions appear from time to time as well. Is McAffrey’s involvement a conflict of interest? If so, where does he cross the line? We’re encouraged to think it through.

The ethical questions are only compounded by the fact that even McAffrey has been prone to misdeeds in the past. The movie creates very real characters as sure to develop viewer attachment as they are to make you think. Overall, “State of Play” is a fast-paced, cerebral thriller, sure to excite and surprise. However, there was another reason that I liked it even more.

The movie plays like a sort of love song to journalism and newspapers. McAffrey and his cranky editor (Helen Mirren) bemoan the fact that The Globe is losing money, and much is made of the conflict between print newspapers and online sources.

The film’s conclusion? Blogs might get you a story faster, but newspapers deliver the complete – and accurate – report. The newsroom is presented as that lovable, noisy place where hard-working but fun-loving journalists pound out their stories on deadline, not caring much about decorum or cleanliness.

It’s obvious that the film owes much of its inspiration to “All the President’s Men,” the classic Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman flick chronicling the true story behind Woodward and Bernstein’s uncovering of the Watergate cover-up. They are obviously held in high regard by the filmmakers of State of Play, as are all journalists who strive for the truth.

However, “State of Play” is not ignorant of the fact that newspapers are not in the best of shape these days. The Globe’s ownership is trying all sorts of gimmicks to increase its readership, and it’s up to the down-to-earth journalists like McAffrey to keep the press from being a non-mobile version of TV.

I appreciate that in a film. In today’s world of hustle and bustle, instant news, constant channel flipping and tab switching, I think that the focused information and perspective found in newspapers is still a worthwhile pursuit. And, if you made it to the end of this review, thanks.
Who knows? Perhaps you think that newspapers are worth something too.

Ten Best SPECIAL EDITION: Jars of Clay

2009-04-26T23:32:00.014-05:00

OK. This was really hard.

Like I said in my last post proper, I am a big, BIG fan of Jars of Clay. I knew it would be hard to narrow down 10 of their songs that I like the most. I decided that a good strategy would be for me to write down all of the songs that could conceivably make it onto the list.

I wrote down 29 songs. On my first round of cutting, I narrowed it down to 18 songs.

The next round of cutting found 13 songs. And it pained me very much to cut those last three. I mean, it's Jars of Clay. They've made eight studio albums (not counting Furthermore or Christmas Songs), and they've released countless bits and pieces of musical brilliance (see some of the reworked tracks from Stringtown, The White Elephant Sessions, Live Monsters, the Roots and Wings EP, Seatbelt Tuba, etc.). I wanted the list to reflect that, but I most of all wanted it to more or less reflect the 1o Jars songs I like the best.

I'm not really even sure if I made it do that. So many of their songs are musically amazing, and their lyrics are consistently thought provoking and genius as well. So, what's a rabid Jars fan like me to do?

Simple. Cheat.

Yeah, yeah, that's why the "special edition" is tacked up there. I included the extra three songs. They are still ranked as 11-13, but now I can give them a little bit of justice with a small write-up.

OK, here goes. And please, bear in mind: coming up with this list took me a long time.

13. Shipwrecked - Roots and Wings EP

This poignant song about (presumably, anyway) a shipwrecked man with a broken past is one of the most beautifully simple recordings that Jars has produced. It's only Dan's voice, some strings, some guitar picking and some spare piano. But boy, does it tug at the emotions.

12. Light Gives Heat (live) - Live Monsters EP

The "Good Monsters" version of this song is good, but not nearly as good as its live counterpart. This seven-minute track seems to rush by as the band substitutes the children's choir with a melodica and some filled in vocal harmonies. The "think about Africa" ending is brilliant.

11. Fade to Grey - Much Afraid

This is the first song the band ever wrote together, and it's still great. One of the great things about Jars is that they don't feel the need to make every song resolve in a happy, "it's-all-OK-because-of-Jesus" ending, and this song is perhaps the best example of their gift of crafting questioning songs. The insistent vocals and drums make this one.

OK, here's crunch time.

10. Work - Good Monsters

I feel like most "Good Monsters" fans like both "Work" and "Dead Man," but they have to pick a side over which one is better. While "Dead Man" is a good tune, "Work" takes the cake for me. The plaintive and honest lyrics coupled with a driving guitar definitely evoke the desperate feel that Jars was going for.

9. Tea & Sympathy - Much Afraid

Yes, this song is a bit melodramatic, but I still love it, lyrics and all. The expertly arranged strings and guitar perfectly capture the feel of a relationship in which it has become easier to ignore the other person rather than interact and reconcile. This song also thematically recalls Simon and Garfunkel's "The Dangling Conversation," a trait that I noted about their new song, "Scenic Route."

8. Collide - If I Left The Zoo

I consistently forget how good this song is. It's one of Jars' most chaotic and layered songs, particularly in the time before their latest albums. It addresses society's skewed view of true love, and it does so in rockin' fashion. I wished they still played this in concert.

7. Headphones - The Long Fall Back To Earth

Man oh man. This song is beautiful. Katie Herzig's vocals make Dan's normal and falsetto tones sound even better, and the lyrics (about society's easy ignorance of other people's problems) are convicting and well layered within the song's structure.

6. Jealous Kind - Who We Are Instead
This song has possibly the best lyrics Jars has ever written. Not many bands write about God's jealousy, but Jars does it very well, and they do it with the flair of a backing Gospel choir and rootsy guitar and piano.

5. Closer - Closer EP
This is the most electronic that Jars has ever gotten, but it's a great little love song that builds wonderfully. This song is also featured on "The Long Fall..." but I like the opening on "Closer EP" better. The lyrics to this one are very clever, and the production is ridiculously layered.

4. Good Monsters - Good Monsters
The lyrics to this song (dealing with the problem of when good men do nothing) are absolutely great, and the bassy guitars and loud and clear vocals make this song ridiculously catchy. There's some wonderfully clear piano during the bridge, too.

3. Trouble Is - Who We Are Instead
This song deals with problems of identity, but that's all secondary to the gruff, world-weary vocals, energetic bluesy guitar and very slight electronic twinge. Who says white guys don't have soul?

2. Mirrors and Smoke - Good Monsters
This duet with Leigh Nash might not deserve to be up so high, but there's just something about it that gets me every time. The guitars are thick, the vocal tradeoffs of the guttural and pristine are perfectly matched, and the song just makes you want to kick back with some good old southern rock.

1. Goodbye, Goodnight - If I Left The Zoo
I'll admit it. This song has personal significance to me, as it was the first song that I ever heard on a Jars of Clay album. I had heard some singles before, but the first time I put this in the player (I think I was 11 or 12), I was confronted with an accordion, a harpsichord (I think, anyway), weird lyrics about the Titanic, a barbershop quartet and simple but grounded vocals and guitars to hold it all together. This song helped show me what music could be, but the nostalgia doesn't take away from the fact that this song still kicks major butt. It's possibly Jars' most unique offering.

So, there you have it. I got it down to 13. However, these songs are all so good that I'm sure that they will trade positions with each other every now and then.

Fans of Jars of Clay will notice some albums that I left off this list. It doesn't mean that I don't like those albums; on the contrary, I like them all. This is just a pretty competitive list. However, I would like to hear your complaints. I feel like Jars invokes all sorts of different opinions.

Also, "fans" of Jars of Clay will notice that there are no songs from the self-titled on here. Get over it.

Runners up include but are in no way limited to: Sad Clown, Boys, Unforgetful You, Oh My God, Take Me Higher (these five are the five of the 18 that I cut), Disappear (live), Revolution (live), Fly Farther, New Math, Sing, Only Alive, The Valley Song, Crazy Times, Hymn, Five Candles, Famous Last Words, Safe to Land, The Eleventh Hour, Drive (cover), Dig (cover) and Liquid.

And not Flood. Sorry, I had to get that one in.

What are your favorite Jars of Clay songs?

The short fall down from 2006

2009-04-24T11:19:00.012-05:00

I am a real fan of Jars of Clay. By real fan I mean that I listen to all of their albums, not just their first one. Actually, their first album, while containing some good songs, is probably their second-worst effort. Don't freak out; it's their first album. It's not supposed to be the best.

However, I am also a fan of Jars of Clay in the sense that I think that they are one of the best bands in all of music today. Lead singer Dan Haseltine is an excellent lyricist, and the band's ability to reinvent their genre on every album while still remaining consistent to "sounding like Jars of Clay" is a feat that has only ever been paralleled by few in the industry. They released two early versions of album songs on "Closer EP" last year, and they were great, so you can imagine my excitement when I heard that Jars was finally releasing their new album, "The Long Fall Back To Earth," on April 21 (I learned of this several months ago, so the excitement was practically fever pitch by last week. Like I said, I'm a real fan).

Before I begin, let me explain my Jars of Clay hierarchy. While I admire the musicianship on all of their albums, I have something of an "elite four" list of Jars albums which I think are a cut above their other work and several cuts above most music in general. My favorite album is their third effort, "If I Left the Zoo," followed closely by the evenly matched seventh and fifth albums, "Good Monsters" and "Who We Are Instead." Their second album, "Much Afraid," rounds out my elite list. I still enjoy all or parts of all of their other albums (although I have not listened to "Christmas Songs" very much), but they aren't quite in the same league.

Anyway, that long explanation is merely there so that I can say that "The Long Fall..." falls a little short of the elite list.

The album starts out with the instrumental "The Long Fall," which is a pleasant enough tune that leads directly into "Weapons," a track questioning why people rush to fight all the time. The first thing that is evident on this album is the increased production values. There are many more layers on all of these songs than there were in any other Jars album so far. The change is probably due to Jars' self-production and going independent with their own record label, Gray Matters. However, while the production values are immediately evident, there is another, unfortunate aspect of the album that also begins to manifest itself on "Weapons."

Repetitive lyrics can work if there's something else interesting going on (or if the recording somehow sounds iconic-"Hey Jude" made itself an instant classic with three minutes of "Na, na, na, na-na-na-naaaa"), but otherwise they fall rather flat. While Jars usually produces stellar lyrics, many songs on "The Long Fall..." are either repetitive or cliche or both, and "Weapons" is one of those songs.

"Lay your weapons down / Lay your weapons down / There are no enemies in front of you." That's the chorus, and they sing it a fair amount. It makes the song a little ho-hum in parts, particularly because the song sometimes doesn't have a lot of different musical elements working together to complement the lyrics.

"Weapons" is followed by "Two Hands," the first single for the album. It is also rather cliched and repetitive, but those two qualities will probably assure good radio play on CCM stations ("If I had two hands / Doing the same thing / Lifted high"). "Heaven" is up next, and, while the music is good (driving guitars and synths), the lyrics swing back and forth between weird and commonplace (it gets really good at the end, however). While none of these songs are "bad," per se, they may prove a little disappointing to fans who know the caliber of songwriting in which Jars usually operates.

Fortunately, "Closer," one of the two best songs on the album, comes in just in time to keep the album interesting. "Closer" is much more electronic than essentially anything else that Jars has ever done, and it served as a kind of introduction to their new sound when the original (slightly better) version was released on last year's "Closer EP." The quirky lyrics speak of how relationships can only work when quality time and attention are put into them, and they are also much more interesting than those of the preceding songs. There's even a Charlie Brown reference!

"Closer" is followed by the also excellent "Safe to Land," a song that finds the singer wondering if he is forgiven. The metaphor of a plane almost out of fuel is used to show the need for other people. The layered production is also put to great use here as it creates an expansive feel.

Coming in at track seven is "Headphones." I cannot say enough positive things about this song. The lyrics condemn the American habit of lapsing into easy apathy by retreating into media. Here, the lyrics of the chorus are repetitive, but they work with other vocal and musical layers to create a hauntingly beautiful sound. The verses are great, Katie Herzig's vocal accompaniment is great, Haseltine's falsetto vocals are great, everything about this song is great. Seriously.

After these three pop masterpieces comes the pedestrian but relatively fun "Don't Stop," followed by "Boys (Lesson One)" a simple but poignant letter to the band members' sons (it's mostly electronic, with a little bit of guitar and what sounds like canned strings [although they probably are real]). Next in line is "Hero," a rather out of place near-rocker that is quite good - except, that is, for the chorus. "We need a hero / To save us from ourselves"? Really? Come on guys, you can do better than that. That complaint aside, I'm unsure as to why this song wasn't the single, as it is upbeat and was featured on a trailer for NBC's "Kings."

Following "Hero" is "Scenic Route," a good folksy song with lyrical themes similar to Simon and Garfunkel's "The Dangling Conversation." My favorite line is when Haseltine sings, "We sit here like novels we picked up but never read through / You think you know my ending / I think I know yours too." The lyrics are complemented by some jangly guitar to create a relaxing but meaningful tune.

Unfortunately, "Scenic Route" is followed by "There Might Be A Light" and "Forgive Me," two instantly forgettable songs that also suffer at times from repetitive or cliched lyrics. The album is closed by the electronic and simple "Heart," a good song and one that is unlike most of Jars' other closers.

Jars' last non-Christmas studio album, "Good Monsters," came out in September of 2006. It was generally regarded as one of their best albums (and rightfully so). Two-and-half years later, they have managed to switch genres once again, going from straight-up rock to electronic 80's sounds. There are quite a few legitimately good songs on this release, and a few great ones, but I can't help but wish that they had done just a bit better.

It probably isn't fair. I hold Jars of Clay to a higher standard than most acts in the music world because I know that they're capable of so much, and it isn't as if anything on this album approaches any level of banality. Even the songs I'm not huge on, I don't hate. However, I've heard better from these gentlemen.

That being said, it's still a pretty good album, probably ranking as my favorite or second favorite Jars album not in "the elite four." It's definitely worth buying, and Jars fans will love hearing "Closer," "Safe to Land," "Headphones," "Boys" and the like. I just wish that there was a bit less filler.

Go. See. This.

2009-04-15T12:00:00.002-05:00

Hey everybody. Yesterday, I saw a prescreening of "State of Play." It was amazing. It's one of the best movies I have seen in a long time. My review will be up here late next week or early the next (The Column gets this one first), but seriously. Watch it.

Ten Best: Ben Folds

2009-04-09T20:55:00.005-05:00

Since the whole "Blogging the Beatles" thing didn't work out so well, I've decided to introduce another - hopefully easier - semi-regular feature on this blog: Ten Best. In these segments, I will pick an entertainment thing - could be a band, a genre of movie, an actor, whatever - and make a briefish list of the ten best "x's" by that thing. As with all things that are my favorites, you should consider them capricious and perhaps inaccurate. If you read this in a year, take that warning doubly seriously. Today, I present the Ten Best Ben Folds Songs.

Ben Folds is a great musical talent. He (generally) is a good songwriter, his voice fits his music, he's snarky, and, best of all, he plays the piano like nobody's business (he also played all of the instruments on his first solo album, "Rockin' the Suburbs"). This list covers most of his career, from Ben Folds Five to his solo stuff (I have listened to The Bens as well, but I don't like any of the songs enough for them to break into the top ten. However, "Bruised" and "X-Fire" are both really good). I would recommend those who don't like swearing to listen to Folds with extreme caution, as he can break it out like a sailor if he is so inclined. I have included a swearing/no swearing rank by each song so you can listen to only the clean ones if you like.

10. Underground - Ben Folds Five, "Ben Folds Five." Swearing: none

As this list progresses, you'll see that I generally prefer Folds' solo stuff (although "Whatever and Ever Amen" is a fantastic album), but this song from the Five's debut is good tune. With a fuzzy bass fiddling around underneath a combination of piano pounding and softer melodies, this song mocks the underground music scene ("Hand me my nose ring!") while still proclaiming its love for the indie nerds. Folds' voice can be pretty nasal at times, but it's still a fun little tune.

9. The Ascent of Stan - Ben Folds, "Rockin' The Suburbs." Swearing: none

"Suburbs" is my favorite album of Folds', and this song is one of the reasons. I've been told that the piano part for this song about an ex-hippie that rises through the corporate ranks is not very complicated, but it sounds amazing.

8. Kylie From Connecticut - Ben Folds, "Way To Normal." Swearing: none

"Way To Normal" is my second-to-least favorite Folds album (the Five's "The Unauthorized Biography of Reinhold Messner" takes the bottom spot), but this song, with a simple yet beautiful arrangement and heart-wrenching story-song lyrics gets me every time.

7. Landed - Ben Folds, "Songs For Silverman." Swearing: none

Gah. The piano gets me every darn time. I assume this song is about a relationship. Whatever it's about, it's just great.

6. B---h Went Nutz - Ben Folds, "Way to Normal (fake)." Swearing: lots and lots

Before "Way to Normal" came out, Folds decided to play a prank on the fans who always leaked his album to the Internet before its release date. His prank was pulled in the form of a fake album leak that included two songs from the real album, an alternate arrangement of another of the "real songs" (which is included further down on the list) and six songs that he recorded off the top of his head - just to mess with his fans. Isn't that cool?

Anyway, the fake album ended up being more enjoyable than the real one, and this song (which should absolutely should not be confused with the bad and even more profane "B---h Went Nuts" on the real album) is a hilarious satire of the traditional bra-burning liberal chick vs. the young Republican lawyer. It also has a killer bassline and a rip-roaring piano track.

5. Fired - Ben Folds, "Rockin' The Suburbs." Swearing: one f-word and one d-word

This jazzy song about people getting fired or something or other is all about the killer piano (and the drums on the chorus). It's pretty hard not to tap your toes for this one.

4. Cologne (DVD Version) - Ben Folds, "Way to Normal (Fake)" Swearing: none

This is an oddly-written song about Folds' latest divorce. The arrangement on the real "Way To Normal" is relatively pedestrian, but this version spices things up with lots of strings, a choir and 10 pianos.

3. One Angry Dwarf and 200 Solemn Faces - Ben Folds, "Whatever and Ever Amen." Swearing: assorted a-words and s-words

This rock-and-rolling tune has one of the most infectious piano tunes that Folds has ever created. There are a lot of songs from "Whatever..." that could have made it on this list ("Song for the Dumped," "Steven's Last Night in Town," "Kate," "Fair," etc.), but "One Angry Dwarf..." is simply the best.

2. Bastard - Ben Folds, "Songs for Silverman" Swearing: a generous sprinkling

This song about the arrogance of the young begins with some simple piano chords, but by the end of the over-five-minute song, Folds has played all over the board. It also has some of his best lyrics, summed up in his chorus/central question: "Why ya gotta act like you know when you don't know/ It's ok if you don't know everything."

1. Fred Jones pt. 2 - Ben Folds, "Rockin' the Suburbs." Swearing: only if you count "bastard"

It's one of the more sparse and simple entries on this list, but come on guys, I'm a journalist: how can I not appreciate a sad song about an old newspaper man who's forced into retirement? The lyrics are nothing super eloquent, and the piano does its job well. However, the combination of the two is just brilliant.

---

Well, that's the list. Other notable songs include (but are no way limited to) "Jackson Cannery," "Steven's Last Night in Town," "Army," "Annie Waits," "Bruised," "Still Fighting It," "Smoke (orchestral version)" and "Gracie."

What are your favorite Ben Folds songs?

Ryan's best of 2008 (or Jacob mostly stole this from me)

2009-01-09T17:19:00.003-06:00

Well, here it is. After a semester of being way too busy to write here (and too busy to write in my other blog very much), I present to you my best of 2008 list.

Top five albums/EPs:

5. Electric Arguments by The Fireman

The Fireman is a "band" comprised of Paul McCartney and the producer Youth. Ten years ago, the made the second of two trance/dance albums (I've listened to parts of the first one, and I thought it was pretty awful). However, this album actually features the (highly edited) voice of Paul, and it runs a wide gamut of genres, starting with blues, going into folk/pop styles and ending on a muted bit of psychedelia. Yes, it's uneven, but it's still good and a nice surprise from the end of 2008.
Standout tracks: Nothing Too Much Just Out of Sight; Universal Here, Everlasting Now; Don't Stop Running

4. The Bird and the Bee Sides by Relient k

While much of this EP/double album/whatever it is falls into the "forgettable" category, parts of it also showcase the unique talents of a band that is simultaneously over and underrated. The release indicates the continuing progression of the band from pop/punk towards straight powerpop, but it's still an enjoyable listen. The second half also includes a large helping of B-sides sure to delight fans of RK's older work.
Standout tracks: The Last, The Lost, The Least; The Scene and Herd; Curl Up and Die; The Stenographer

3. Narrow Stairs by Death Cab for Cutie

It's a bit uneven and it's not as good as Plans (but-it's-better-than-Transatlantism-suck-on-that-haters!), but Death Cab managed to make a profoundly different album. The theme on this album is one of indie rockers who finally hit the big time and realized that their nuanced melancholy still hasn't gone away. This is a band searching for meaning in life, places and relationships. While I hope they find meaning in what really counts (John 3:16), they have made a haunting album.
Standout tracks: Bixby Canyon Bridge, Cath, Twin Sized Bed, The Ice is Getting Thinner

2. Keep Color by The Republic Tigers

I didn't like this album that much when I first heard it. While the hooks were pleasant and mellow, the songs kind of flowed together. Repeat listens showed me that this was the point. The Republic Tigers crafted a very cohesive album that sets a relaxed but appreciative mood. Their rock sound is comfortable but in a way that makes you appreciate its artistry, and the production is great. Immerse yourself in this one.
Standout tracks: Buildings and Mountains, Feelin' The Future, The Nerve, The Fight Song

1. Anti-Meridian by Brave Saint Saturn

Five years is a long time to wait, but it was worth it for a new release by Reese Roper's good band. Anti-Meridian is a lot more sci-fi and a lot less "astro rock" than 2003's The Light of Things Hoped For, but it's still a winner. Heavy on the synth and raw guitars, Anti-Meridian is the angriest and most disillusioned that BS2 has ever gotten, with songs lashing out at betrayal, insufferable fans and blind nationalism within the Church. While it's slightly less cohesive than TLOTHF, its production is better and the songwriting is more mature. It ends on a note of love and brokenness, with the possibility that another trilogy could happen. Here's hoping.
Standout tracks: Here Is the News, Mercenary, Starling, When You Burn Too Fast, Fortress of Solitude, Blessed Are the Land Mines

Top five movies (While I can't, in good conscience, put The Spirit here, it is a movie that accomplishes exactly what it sets out to do, and it is simultaneously cornily and cleverly funny while doing so. The critics didn't get the joke, and you should see it):

5. Eagle Eye

While the movie is a bit derivative (think I, Robot meets The Fugitive), the movie does have an engaging if implausible story that makes you care about the characters. Also, this movie convinced me that Shia LeBeouf can, in fact, act.

4. Iron Man

The movie is very clever, and it is carried mostly on the strength of Robert Downey Jr (Gwyneth Paltrow also does a good job). It is kind of an empty word fest at times, but it's a pretty entertaining one.

3. Wall-E

This was good one. This is a beautifully animated movie, and it beautifully portrays how humans have become more isolated even though they live in a "communication" saturated world. It mixes genres, too. The first half is almost a silent film. Funny, different, meaningful. This movie has it all.

2. Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

I'm going to get critically snobby right now: if you didn't like the implausibility and weirdness of this movie, then you have no reason to like the other ones. (SPOILER) The aliens are actually a better MacGuffin than the Sankara stones, and the fridge nuking is actually pretty entertaining. (END SPOILER) Shia does ok (minus the 30-second monkey scene, which is even worse than everyone says), Harrison Ford, as always, is freaking Harrison Ford, but the most important thing the movie gets is that it feels just like an old Indy flick.

1. The Dark Knight

What can I say? This movie lived up to the hype. Christopher Nolan did a masterful job, and the comic's themes are alive and well. This movie is engaging, thought-provoking, intense and extremely well-directed and shot. It's an instant classic, and if DC Comics doesn't get increased readership because of it, there is no justice in the world.

Top 10 songs (only one song per artist, and these are not in any particular order)

Kylie From Connecticut - Ben Folds: One of his most moving songs. (Runners up: the DVD version of Cologne and the fake version of B---h Went Nutz [don't listen to the real version, it's dumb and profane for profanity's sake])

Nothing Too Much Just Out of Sight - The Fireman: Paul McCartney succeeds where he failed on Helter Skelter and (miserably) Nod Your Head. Way to finally make a good, grungy, blues song. (Runners up: Don't Stop Running)

The End of the Road - Tyler Burkum: Burkum's laid back album produced several mellow numbers, but this guitar-picker is the best. Good lyrics and ethereal vocals. (Runners up: Everything You Said, Gales of November)

As From Above - Brilliant Geographers: This experimental indie folk band has got a great sound. Check them out at their myspace. (Runner up: Sucker for Your Love)

When You Burn Too Fast - Brave Saint Saturn: The dissonant horns on this song always get me, and Reese's vocals and lyrics are spot-on. (Runners up: Blessed Are the Land Mines, Starling, Here is the News)

Spiralling - Keane: Possibly the most energetic song of the year. The "Woo!" always gets me.

Safe To Land - Jars of Clay: If this song is a taste of this year's album, it can't come soon enough. GAAAHJARSOFCLAYSOGOOD. (Runner up: Closer)

Buildings and Mountains - The Republic Tigers: The harmonies are excellent, and the guitar is perfect. Really, this song has everything in its proper place. (Runners up: The Nerve, The Fight Song)

Twin Sized Bed - Death Cab for Cutie: This jangly number best accomplishes Death Cab's goal of juxtaposing depressing words on vaguely optimistic melodies. This really is a good song. (Runner up: Bixby Canyon Bridge)

The Stenographer - Relient k: I'm relatively certain that Matt Thiessen recorded this song entirely on his own, but there is no official confirmation of this yet. However, it's still a great song, complete with timing changes and Garage Band loopiness. (Runner up: Curl Up and Die)

Top five books I read for the first time this year (these books did not come out this year)

5. Dracula - Bram Stoker: The main draw of this novel is the point of view of the author. The story is told in first person through the letters and journal entries of several different characters. It's classic story remains a winner.

4. Watchmen - Alan Moore: First of all, this book is absolutely not for the faint of heart. It is very R-rated. However, it is also absolutely amazing. It is the best graphic novel that I have read, and I also count it (as well as the next three books on this list) among one of the best books I have read, period. A serious send-up of the superhero mythos and a frightening look at what makes humans tick.

3. Brave New World - Alduous Huxley: So good. This book asks the question, "is it better to be happy or smart?" better than any other book I have read. The words of the Savage are beautiful and thought-provoking.

2. That Hideous Strength - C.S. Lewis: This is probably tied with The Screwtape Letters for my favorite Lewis book. It successfully juxtaposes dystopian literature with that of both the fantasy and sci-fi genres, and the themes of idolatry are impeccable. In fact, read all of Lewis' space trilogy.

1. Fahrenheit 451 - Ray Bradbury: If you have ever looked for a book that is a love story about books, look no further. This book contains the most beautiful monologues that I have ever read, and the story is taut and sympathetic. Unquestionably my favorite of the year.

The 10 albums I listened to most in 2008

1. Trampoline - Steel Train (seriously, if you haven't listened to this, drop what you're doing and listen [after you've finished this list, anyway])
2. Stupid Dream - Porcupine Tree
3. Anti-Meridian - Brave Saint Saturn
4. Revolver - The Beatles
5. Give Up - The Postal Service
6. Deadwing - Porcupine Tree
7. Abbey Road - The Beatles
8. Polarity - The Wedding
9. Whatever and Ever Amen - Ben Folds Five
10. Rockin' the Suburbs - Ben Folds

I might steal from Jacob later and come up with a more general "best things" blog, but it's 3:30 a.m. This is what I've got.

In Brief

2008-08-31T20:57:00.002-05:00

I hope to see the Clone Wars later this week. A review should be forthcoming after that. Sorry about the non-writing; I have been working on the newspaper a heck of a lot.

I saw Hancock a few weeks ago. I don't feel like reviewing it, but a link that describes my thoughts (only funnier) almost to a "t" can be found here. BEWARE: Don't go there if you mind swearing, and if you don't want to find out what happens on season three of "Arrested Development," don't read what Jason Bateman says immediately after Will Smith asks him how he and Charlize Theron met.

Two other quick music notes. One is that I am getting more and more excited for the new Brave Saint Saturn album. The band has had two (very good) demos posted for a long time, but now, after several delays, IT'S ALMOST HERE.

Also, Ben Folds is releasing his latest album, "Way to Normal," at the end of September. Check out his Myspace to hear three new songs ("You Don't Know Me," "Hiroshima," Cologne") and two songs that he recorded to be silly and dumb on purpose just to mess with his fans ("Way to Normal" and the hilarious [but profanity laced] "B---- Went Nutz"). Again, BEWARE: Ben does swear on many of his songs. If you don't want to hear that, still go to the page and watch the video for Cologne. There is no profanity and the song is amazing.

Lastly, I am starting a new blog called Beauty/Conundrum. I don't know how often I'll be updating it, as I barely have time for this blog right now, but I wanted to start it because it portrays a more serious side of me, the side that talks about ideas and thoughts and feelings rather than movies, books and music. You can navigate to it on the sidebar of this blog. I won't be uploading it to Facebook (though it will be linked to under My Websites), so if you want to read it, you'll have to go to the actual blog. I posted something there today. I hope you like it.

Reflections on media choices

2008-08-04T18:56:00.005-05:00

Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things. - Philippians 4:8

...and there must be no filthiness and silly talk, or coarse jesting, which are not fitting, but rather giving of thanks. - Ephesians 5:4

These two verses have stirred endless amounts of debate among Christians, and I hope I won't add another argument. I merely wish to give my own thoughts and ask for your own.

I have often struggled to apply these verses to my life. I do try to follow them--I really do--but I am often confused about what the reach and intent of the verses are. Intent: that is the important thing, or so it has been drilled into my skull since coming to Northwestern (also, my apologies for this horrendous sentence). In fact, this has altogether been an ill-conceived paragraph, so please move on to the next one.

With the first verse, I am faced with two questions:

Question 1: How am I to determine what is true, noble, right, pure, etc. in the context of media?

"The Dark Knight" is a perfect example here. In fact, it is the example that sparked my idea for this blog. The other day, I was chatting about entertainment with an older friend who I respect very much, particularly in regard to his spiritual insights. He was telling me that he had been reading my blog, and I asked him if he had checked out my TDK review because I feel that that is one of my better blogs, and I liked the movie a lot. He said he had, but he hadn't liked the film that much because it was too dark for him. I understood; I don't think the movie is for everyone, even though I do think it is extremely well put together.

However, the subject came up later in the day with someone else that we both know, and my friend reiterated his dislike, this time including the fact that he thought it was too dark from an objectively biblical standpoint, pointing to the Philippians verse as a guideline (sorry if I'm embarrassing you, my unnamed friend, but I'm writing this because I really do respect your spiritual insights). His statement got me thinking about the positive/negative aspects of the movie.

The only negative aspect I could think of (and it is certainly the one he was referring to) was the shown or (as was usually the case) implicit violence. While I do think that this is a legitimate concern--the movie is filled with it--I did not come to the same conclusions as my friend.

Most of the violence in the movie is perpetrated by the Joker. While the SPOILER SKIP THIS PART OF THE SENTENCE OK YOU'VE HAD YOUR WARNING pencil thing END OF SPOILER CONTINUE READING is pretty funny, it is funny on a level that the Joker has always had: one that makes him utterly terrible and terrifying. All of his violent, disturbing actions in the movie are designed to be unnerving, not to be glorifying. You grow to absolutely despise the Joker, to the point that you want him to be killed in order to stop the terror.

In short, the violence is the farthest thing from glorified. Its purpose is to paint a stark picture of evil and to show why such evil needs to vanquished, even if the cost is monumentally high.

That, I think, is the point that I would pick if I had to pick only one overarching theme for the entire movie: while it raises many hard questions, the movie ultimately champions those who do the right thing and fight against evil, even when it means extraordinary sacrifices must be made. That, to me, is a very noble and true thing to portray, and the movie makes its points while also being gripping, intelligent and entertaining. However, the challenge is still there: what makes a film or a song or a book noble, right, pure, lovely and admirable?

Question 2: Is it ok for us to to consume entertainment that does not fit this standard/that contains some material that does not fit this standard? If so, how much content is too much?

Example? "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy," my absolute favorite novel by my absolute favorite novelist, avowed atheist Douglas Adams. I believe that all of his Hitchhiker books (with the unfortunate exception of "So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish") have some good things to say about the absurdity of existence and the pointlessness of many of our everyday activities, mirroring Ecclesiastes in many ways. However, he doesn't ever give the spiritual solution found in Ecclesiastes (although the physical one--work hard and enjoy the fruits of your labor--does show up in book five), and I would be lying if I didn't say that the main reason I enjoy the books is simply because they are gut-bustingly hilarious.

Besides the fact that there are, essentially, no spiritually uplifting elements in the book, there is also a mild amount of profanity, fair amounts of mildly-to-fairly crude humor (more on those two elements in section two of this blog), some instances of taking God's name in vain and some irreverent jokes. However, I love it. It is so funny.

Am I doing the wrong thing? Why or why not? Where is that line drawn? Obviously, we aren't only to think on such things. There's nothing wrong with listening to a knock-knock joke, and this link contains pretty good evidence of God using a pun--a pretty silly pun at that--in the book of Jeremiah.

What about objectionable content like the things I mentioned above? Almost every piece of media not explicitly "Christian"--and even some of that is--contains elements that some people might find wrong. Where's the line?

While I do think that there are things that are objectively objectionable and not good to consume, I think a good guideline is to wonder if the intake of such media is hampering you spiritually. However, sometimes one can turn a blind eye to such hampering. Prayer is a good idea when faced with something that you feel might not be a good idea.

Before some of you dismiss me for kids-stuff-Sunday-School pandering, allow me to be a bit boorish in saying that you probably need to hear this more than anyone. I know many Christians, and I unfortunately must sometimes include myself among them, who disregard these verses and will watch/read/listen to anything, all the while claiming that it doesn't affect them. Sometimes they don't even go that far; they merely like what they see, screw the consequences.

If you don't think that this verse applies to media consumption in some way, what do you think the verse is for?

I'm still trying to work this one out. I really don't think that we should only consume media that contains only positive/neutral elements. But I do think that this verse is important, and that it does apply, individually-conscience-wise and objectively, to certain pieces of media. What do you think?

The second verse also brings to mind two questions, and I think that my gut reactions may be contrary to a lot of yours.

Question 1: What is coarse jesting or profane speech?

I will say right away that taking God's name in vain is wrong. It's right there in the Bible, and if you do that, you are objectively sinning. However, what about some of the other things people say?

Take, for example, swearing. Swearing is almost completely subjective. If I say "piss," some of you would disapprove, some of you wouldn't even raise an eyebrow. If I said "crap" or "dang" around my grandma, she might think me rather uncouth. But most of you wouldn't care.

There are words that are even more borderline--words like "hell" or "bastard." However, people's opinions change even on the subject of more recognized profanities.

I would never say "the f-word" or "the s-word" or "the b-word" or usually even "the d-word" or "the a-word" around my parents. However, I have used all of them before, although I generally try to curb my usage substantially so as not to offend (and because excessive swearing makes you sound like an idiot who has never heard of synonyms).

Now, before you burn me at the stake, I should point out that most of you are probably fans of at least the first "Pirates of the Caribbean" movie. However, they spout off the word "bloody" in that movie quite often, which is deemed rather (or perhaps more) profane in many other countries. However, we laughingly indulge in this foreign profanity as we quote all of Johnny Depp's funny lines. There are other examples of this type of thing, when an odd word would constitute an egregious insult in another culture.

Remember when I said I didn't want to offend others by swearing? I think that the key lies there. While sometimes people just need to lighten up, I do believe that, since crudity can oftentimes be a culturally or even individually defined thing, we should watch what we say--and what we watch/read/hear--around others who might stumble or be offended at our speech. This can protect our witness with some, show how we are different to others and keep our good standing with many people. Again, while some people just need to learn that some things are ok, perhaps it is not always our job to teach them these things.

Question 2: Where is the line where the individually defined becomes objective? And, with that, are there some generally recognized crude topics that are ok to joke about?

The problem with my above statements is that some people will venture into the crude realm quite unabashedly, and some things are, I believe, objectively crass.

Take, for yet another example, bestiality. I believe that joking about bestiality is gross, coarse, crass and inappropriate, and I believe that no one should do it. But why do I think this? Because it's a sin? No, because people joke about theft and lying and even murder and premarital/homosexual sex all the time (although I do believe some of that to be objectionable as well, especially joking about homosexual sex. And yet we get a kick out of people pretending to be gay). Why is it objectionable then? To be honest, I'm not sure I know. But I do firmly believe that it's not something to be joked about. Again, maybe prayer is the best answer here as well.

The other part of that question is that I have definitely laughed at jokes that would be generally considered crass and even at jokes that I would consider to be crass. A prime example of this would be the TV show "Arrested Development." AD is the most cleverly-written TV show I have ever watched. It can also be very crude at times, and sometimes I laugh at this crudity. The most popular character on the show is GOB, a womanizing, sometimes foul-mouthed, immature dope. And with good reason: he's absolutely hilarious, even if many of his one-liners are crude.

Again, it's a cop-out to say that he's wrong because he jokes about sin, unless you shun jokes about greed, theft, murder, assault etc. (and what about heist movies? The Oceans flicks and others glorify theft, but man is the first one entertaining) But why is he wrong? Is it wrong that I laugh at things that are mildly crude? What is the answer?

I'm not sure I know. I'd love to hear your answers. For now, I'm going to keep trying to work out my faith with fear and trembling. Gotta get my Bible, gotta talk to God.

10 Christian music albums to check out

2008-07-28T10:45:00.006-05:00

By the way, if you are reading these blogs on Facebook, you should really go to the original post at ryanreviewslife.blogspot.com. The format is better, you can read the blogs the way they were written (with italics, bolds, etc.), and you can check out other cool things.

I knew the last post was going to come off as harsh, and it was meant to in some ways. However, I don't mean to bash all Christian music, and I dislike the attitude that all Christian music is bad almost as much as the circle-the-wagons mentality that only Christian music is good. In fact, a couple of the bands/artists that I mentioned in the last post (namely Switchfoot, Jeremy Camp and Sanctus Real) have done some good work, albeit tempered with self-copying and self-importance (Switchfoot), some repetitiveness (Camp) and many songs with preachiness, repetitiveness or simplicity (Sanctus Real).

So, in the spirit of fairness and of not wanting you to miss out on some good tunes, I have compiled a list of 10 good albums by bands generally thought of as Christian. I have picked albums from 10 different bands, and I have included short lists of their other stuff that's worth checking out. This list is roughly based on my quite subjective view of which album is best, with the best album being number one.

10. Polarity - The Wedding
Genre: Rock, with twinges of southern rock

I wasn't sold on this album when it first came out, mostly because I was not (and still am not) a fan of The Wedding's first release. However, this one far exceeded my expectations. The reason why is a huge uptake in energy.

The guitars are out in full force, along with some brass to make the album stand out from other rock acts. However, the biggest improvement over the first album is the vocalist, Kevin Kiehn. If you didn't listen closely to both albums, it would be easy to think that the band had switched vocalists, as Kiehn's voice goes from light and unfulfilled on the first release to full and bursting with emotion and distinction on their second.

Add that to the fact that many songs on the album have pretty deep lyrics for the genre they're playing in, and you have a solid sophomore release from The Wedding.

Other stuff to check out: You remember how I said that it sounded like they switched vocalists from the first album to the second? Well, after the second album, they actually did switch vocalist, and the new one isn't nearly as good, so Polarity stands alone as the only album by the band that I can recommend.

9. Word of Mouth - John Reuben
Genre: Rap/Hiphop

While I normally dislike the above genres, I can get into Reuben because, unlike much hiphop that I hear, he isn't repetitive and he tries to be unique in his musical arrangements. While he can a little repetitive at times, his lyrics are clever and provide some good and needed jabs at popular culture. Also, his song "Make Money Money" is the only rap song I've ever heard that employs a banjo.

Other stuff to check out: "The Boy vs. the Cynic" may actually be better than "Word of Mouth." No sweet banjo song though.

8. Brother, Sister - mewithoutyou
Genre: progressive/indie rock

I'm still trying to figure this band out. They are definitely very talented (although sometimes a bit too dissonant for my tastes), but I still am not sure how much I like them. The reason for that is that their vocalist, Aaron Weiss, rather than singing his poetic lyrics, sort of shout/speak/sings everything. While this would normally annoy me to no end, he isn't trying to sound good in these songs. When an artist thinks he's a good singer but isn't, the musical effect is usually pretty awful. Weiss' stylings are created to complement the music, which includes raging guitars, interesting drum parts and some oddball instruments like the accordion, but it still takes some getting used to.

This album is worth checking out for its poetic lyrics, particularly on "C Minor" and "In a Sweater Poorly Knit." Keep listening if you can get used to Weiss.

Other stuff to check out: I'm not too familiar with the band, but I've heard that "Catch for Us the Foxes" is a good release too.

7. Love Liberty Disco - The Newsboys
Genre: Usually pop or pop/rock, but this album, obviously, is disco

While The Newsboys have certainly declined from their pre-worship album days, many people have forgotten that they did release some solid pop tunes before the turn of the century (and, with this album, just after). This is probably the most underappreciated Newsboys album, but it is actually very well layered and a great tribute to what happens to be a similarly underappreciated genre.

It's fairly short, but in a way that's good, as the album doesn't overstay its welcome. The strings and the electric guitars mesh well, and the more atmospheric songs are good too.

Other stuff to check out: "Going Public," "Step Up to the Microphone"

6. Lift - Audio Adrenaline
Genre: Rock

Lift represents the best of Audio Adrenaline for two reasons. The first reason is that, on this album, they finally transcended what was already a very catchy straight up rock sound and turned it into something more introspective. This album more than any of their others sounds like a complete album, rollicking when it should and slowing when it should while still sounding cohesive.

The second reason is that this is the first album in which their second vocalist, Tyler Burkum, assumed significant singing duties, and it is the last album in which their first vocalist, Mark Stuart, was not dominated by Burkum in any of the songs. Their smooth/rough, evenly distributed vocal stylings makes for a balanced yet interesting listen.

Other stuff to listen to: While I am a sucker for at least something on nearly all of the band's releases, "Underdog" is the pinnacle of Audio A's rock and roll sound, and "Bloom" is a catchy, more raw version of the same style (although some of the lyrics leave something to be desired).

5. A Collision - David Crowder Band
Genre: Worship, experimental/alternative

Every time I listen to this album, I hear something new. Crowder has laced his songs with old-style recordings, bluegrass, echo laden piano parts, electronic elements and much more. In what might be an even more significant achievement, he has made many of his songs' music add to the meaning of his lyrics. You can feel the climax that he speaks of on tracks like "A Beautiful Collision," and "We Win!," and the eternal exultation of God is felt more thoroughly after hearing "Foreverandever Etc.," which ends on a repeating constant note, intimating that worship will transcend time.

What I love about this album is Crowder's ability to simultaneously make a great experimental album while making a great worship album. The man cares about the quality of his music, and it manifests itself in the quality of his lyrics.

Other stuff to check out: "Remedy" offers more great music, although the lyrics aren't as insightful as this release.

4. The Light of Things Hoped For - Brave Saint Saturn
Genre: Astro rock

While I am not a fan of Five Iron Frenzy or the short-lived Roper, Reese Roper's Brave Saint Saturn project is definitely one to check out. While their debut album "So Far From Home," is plagued by hasty production, The Light of Things Hoped For sounds much more full. The band's songwriting improved as well, and the result is a rock album supplemented by synthesizers, ethereal pianos and clips from NASA to build an poignant sense of loneliness. Many of the songs don't sound amazing by themselves, but the music in its proper place forms an album that tells a story, building to climax of the final song, "Daylight." This is one theme album you should definitely check out.

Other stuff to check out: So Far From Home is decent, but there is some poor songwriting on a few tracks, and the production is subpar. The two tracks I've heard from the upcoming album "Anti-Meridian" give me hope, however, that the band's final album will be its best.

3. Supernatural - dc Talk
Genre: Rock/hiphop, although by this time they had gone almost completely over to a rock style.

While "Jesus Freak" marked the transition from dc Talk being a corny, 80s rap tribute band into a talented Christian rock powerhouse, Supernatural takes over where Freak left off and develops the harmonies, riffs and complexity to a much more mature sound. While Supernatural does contain the rockin' guitars found on Freak (see "It's Killing Me" for one of the best examples), it branches out into wider fields to include more unique elements, like the organ on "Since I Met You," the Stevie Wonder-esque vocals on "We All Want to Be Loved" and the sound of a submarine sonar keeping time on "Dive."

It's too bad that dc Talk's career had to end on this note. While it's a worthy end, one has to wonder where they would have gone from this point, as this was only their second album since the realization of their new style.

Other stuff to check out: Well, there's Jesus Freak, but "Welcome to the Freak Show" infuses even more energy into those songs, while taking some of their older songs and actually making them sound good.

2. Mmhmm - Relient k
Genre: It went from garage punk to punk/pop to pop/rock. At this point, it was punk/pop at its most capable.

In retrospect, this seems to be a landmark album for the band. It was the last album with RK's "classic lineup" of Thiessen, Hoopes, Pittman and Douglas, it was the first album that garnered them mainstream attention, it has been (so far) the last album that saw a significant amount of punk influence, and it was the album that seemed to shake off the people who only liked the band for their funny songs. With the exceptions of "High of 75," "The Only Thing Worse Than Beating a Dead Horse is Betting on One" and "My Girl's Ex-Boyfriend," this album is laugh-free, and even those three songs don't get a lot of guffaws.

What this album does get is a dose and a half of what is hands-down vocalist Matt Thiessen's best lyrics to date. He's never been this consistently clever, poetic and insightful before or since. The guitars and drums work together to create a mostly break-neck pace for the album, but it never sounds rushed. Piano fills and backgrounds supplement the louder portions to make the album stand out and sound better and more meaningful.

As I said, Thiessen's best lyrics are contained here, whether it's a cry for God's help ("Be My Escape"), criticisms of society's jumping to the next big thing ("This Week the Trend," "Maintain Consciousness") or, most frequently, a reflection on the overwhelming grace of the Savior ("I So Hate Consequences," "Life After Death and Taxes," "When I Go Down"). This is the album for those that thought that punk couldn't get out a message besides "we hate the establishment."

Other stuff to check out: While all of their albums have some fun/quality songs, "Two Lefts Don't Make a Right (But Three Do)" is their second-best album, followed by the uneven-yet-musically-diverse "Five Score and Seven Years Ago." Their 26-song EP "The Bird and the Bee Sides" is also very solid.

1. If I Left the Zoo - Jars of Clay
Genre: Various albums have been classified as folk, powerpop, alternative, rock, Gospel/bluegrass/roots and contemporary. Here they could best be described as experimental/folk/alternative.

This is nearly unquestionably the most underrated album of an underrated band. While Jars has always remained relatively popular, they have nowhere near the same amount of fame (even in the Christian community) as they did when they release their first album. However, while that album has some good tracks and while "Flood" proved it could eat up the charts, the band's first release has been musically overshadowed by almost every album the band has put out since (which isn't to say that it's not good. Jars just keeps getting better).

The band's pinnacle album (for me, anyway) is If I Left the Zoo, Jars' highly successful attempt at playing music that is thoroughly different while still being characteristic of the band.

From the goofy accordion opening to the introspective, guitar-picking close, the album skirts all over the place while still remaining cohesive. There's the catchy, hook-laden "Unforgetful You," the high energy commentary on love rocker "Collide," the gospel-choir-backed "I'm Alright" and so much more. One of the best tracks might be the allegorical "Sad Clown," which talks about how only God can crack through the happy facade that we put up. A meandering toy piano on the bridge makes this song a highlight.

This album takes the band's obvious love for all sorts of music and meshes with some of their most thought-provoking lyrical imagery. Go listen to it. Please.

Other stuff to check out: While they have great tracks on all of their albums, "Much Afraid," "Who We Are Instead" and "Good Monsters" round out their best work. I'm looking forward to their 2009 release, which already sounds like yet another new direction for this talented band.

There's my list. It's not comprehensive and very subjective, but so are all reviews. Enjoy.

This is what's wrong with Christian music

2008-07-24T22:10:00.004-05:00

Please note, when I say "Christian music," I realize that this does not apply to every band that falls under the moniker. Indeed, there are many good Christian acts out there (although, sadly, many are now gone). However, this is an indictment of the industry as a whole and many of the acts that are at the center of the industry's focus.

While there are many things I could focus one besides the topics I cover here, I think that the things I dislike the most can be distilled into these four points.

1. Industry inbreeding and/or deriving from secular bands

Earlier this year, I came across a poster in a youth room from a church I was visiting. On it was a list of most of the "big Christian bands" at the time the poster was released. Across from each band was another list, this one letting potential listeners know which secular bands the Christian bands sounded like.

On the surface, this may seem acceptable to you. After all, there are so many subgenres and so many bands that many of them play in the same style, right? Well, sure, and there's nothing wrong with that, but I submit that it's symptomatic of a larger problem (well, two larger problems, but I'll address the second half in point four).

To so boldly link bands suggests that, rather than playing in the same genre, the bands on the left side of the poster were the "Christianized versions" of the bands on the right. This is not a good creative step for the Christian music industry, and whoever decided to actually broadcast this with a poster may have been a few beads short of a rosary.

This was more prominent in the late 90s/early 00s, but I used to hear (and still on occasion hear) that X Christian band was like "The Christian version of X secular band!" The phrase was bandied about in excitement, as if flaunting your unoriginality in musical taste was a badge of honor or something.

Let's face it. Music, Christian or secular, is notorious (even more so than other entertainment mediums) for copying everything else out there. However, this is almost encouraged in some circles of the Christian industry, which, if you think about it, is kind of insulting.

Christians are and have always been capable of coming up with original material, be it music, literature or ... well, I guess we're still waiting on film. However, the Christian music industry is full of bands that either ape secular bands or commit the probably worse sin of copying other Christian acts, most of whom are already copying others.

Take, for example, the trail of wreckage left by Relient k. When they started up, their band drew lots of comparisons to MXPX, NOFX and Jimmy Eat World. However, their first album, though basically generic garage punk, still managed to get in a few pretty good songs edgewise. It also (and many people don't recognize this) contained many vocal harmonies which added a bit to the songs and prefaced their very harmony-driven sound today. Speaking of today, they have since evolved into a talented pop-rock band that likes to take their sound in different directions, and most people have dropped charges of copying from Relient k's offenses.

Where's the problem then? Well, first, you have Hawk Nelson, a Christian punk-pop band that is always a couple of albums short of where Relient k is. They rode (some say hijacked) Relient k's introduction of Christian pop-punk to success, and they now feed off the success that they've had as Relient k-lite. Every now and then a good, original song will surface, but those songs are few and far between.

One rung down the ladder stands Stellar Kart, aka Hawk Nelson-lite. Stellar Kart is a few albums behind Hawk Nelson, who, as I've already said, is copying Relient k's style from a few years ago. Add that to the fact that you know that somewhere out there is a band that is taking their cues from Stellar Kart, and you have a mess.

The rest of the story? While still professing Christians, Relient k has distanced themselves from the industry and positioned themselves as more of a "we're a rock band who sings about whatever but a lot of the time it's our faith" kind of band. Like Switchfoot, except Relient k is actually good. OOOH, WHAT NOW?!?

This kind of stuff goes on all the time in Christian music. It happens in secular music too, but in the Christian world nobody minds. They even promote it! So, the next time you're on a Christian band's myspace and their "sounds like" section says "Like nothing else you've ever heard," keep in mind that it probably sounds just like all of the other bands that sound like nothing else you've ever heard.

Bottom line: Originality is important. While it's not bad for a band to have moments when you can hear their influences, it is bad for bands to try to be their influences, except, "y'know, we sing about God."

2. "Preachiness"

This one can even befall bands that are good, like Audio Adrenaline (see, Christian music industry, you CAN have a band that carves their own niche within a broad genre!), and it too often does in bands that are ok but have the potential to be better, like Sanctus Real. Sanctus, a band with one pretty solid album (not without its flaws, as you'll see momentarily) and a few albums with some good tracks on them, churned out a little number for their best album called "Mr. Deeds." Besides being a lame Adam Sandler reference, the chorus of the song goes like this:

"If you don't have faith you have nothing at all,
If you don't have deeds your faith will fall,
They can't be true without each other,
You can't have one without the other."

Apparently, Sanctus had been trying to listen to the market, and the market was saying something along the lines of "Gee, I totally want to hear a song that contains a simplified version of faith vs. works crammed awkwardly into a mediocre song structure. What do you mean, 'read James'? What the heck is that?"

Obviously, I am not against songs that convey spiritual truth. Nor am I necessarily against songs that contain simple lyrics. However, simple songs still can be innovative and catchy (see "She Loves You" by the Beatles or "Beautiful" by Audio Adrenaline), and spiritual truths do not need to be hamfistedly shoved into a song. Compare the above song with the lyrics to "Jealous Kind" by Jars of Clay, a song discussing the nature of God's jealousy:

"You know I've been unfaithful,
Lovers in lines,
While you're turning over tables with the rage of a jealous kind,
I chose the gallows to the aisle,
Thought that love would never find,
Hanging ropes will never keep you,
And your love of a jealous kind."

Simplistic and pandering vs. eloquent and poetic. Straight-forward to a fault vs. layered and complex. Incidentally, when a band cares about its lyrics, the music is usually better too, and these two songs are no exception.

However, while Jars of Clay is a popular band in some circles, they are nowhere as "in" the industry right now as Sanctus Real. In fact, there are many (far too many) people who will tell you that they got into Jars' first album (you know, the one with "Flood" and a bunch of other songs on it) and then never really liked anything else they did. The problem? Their first album is probably their worst one.

Bands end up being preachy way too often. Either that or they fall prey to problem number three, which I will discuss momentarily. Preachiness shows laziness or lack of talent, and it shouldn't be allowed to thrive when there are bands writing lyrics of substance.

Bottom line: If we want to do systematic theology, we'll read the Bible, not listen to your song that distills the subject into a Sunday School lesson for an eight year old. Give us something meaty to work with, or at least give us something easy that's catchy and different.

3. Lack of creativity

While point three can be tied to points two and one, it deserves its own section because it goes far beyond both of those points. There are many times when a band isn't being preachy or a copycat, but they still lack originality.

You know what I'm talking about. Bands that strum power chords over and over through every single song they ever do, never stopping to put in an ounce of originality, diversity or inspiration. Bands whose lyrics aren't preachy but are still utterly mundane and ill-conceived. Both Christian rock and CCM have made their fortunes as of late off of McMusic, and so many people are only too happy to lap up these exultations of the generic.

Take Chris Tomlin as an example. While he has a couple of good songs, most of his songs lack any sort of musical impact, and almost all of his songs could be categorized by singing "God is great, great is God, God is King, King God is great, etc. etc. ad nauseum."

David Crowder Band, on the other hand, is relatively popular among the CCM crowd, but the group definitely plays second fiddle to a truckload of CCM artists who it is better than by leaps and bounds, including Jeremy Camp, Tomlin, Casting Crowns and, well, almost anyone else, because David Crowder Band is one of the most original acts to hit the CCM scene in a long time. Compare almost all of Tomlin's lyrics with this snippet from Crowder's "Wholly Yours."

"I am full of earth,
You are heaven’s worth,
I am stained with dirt, prone to depravity,
You are everything that is bright and clean,
The antonym of me,
You are divinity."

These lyrics essentially say everything that almost any of Tomlin's lyrics have ever said, but they transcend them and actually make you think about what you're listening to. Yes, God is great, but having "God is great" pounded into my head 20 times in three minutes isn't going to make me think about it any differently.

That's not even accounting for Crowder's music. His "A Collision" album is an absolutely marvelous display of musical complexity, both in adding in intricate unique details and using musical effects to enhance what his lyrics are trying to convey.

Worship isn't the only genre that cows to the mundane. Here are some lyrics from Everyday Sunday's "Wake Up! Wake Up!"

"Feels like I'm going through the motions in the dark,
In a world that leaves me with an uninspired heart,

All I know is I'm so tired,
Living life I barely feel,
Give me hope, give me fire,
Give me something real."

Yawn. I can only hope that the original title of this song was "Wake Me Up When It's Over." We can do better than to listen to stuff like this. The acceptance of bands like Everyday Sunday and their compatriots has given rise to an industry that is currently fawning over Family Force 5, a band who has taken being really generic and given it a twist by writing slightly more creative lyrics, coming up with such absurd stage names that you kind of want someone to beat them up and generally sucking at every aspect of making music.

Bottom line: Don't just be another face in the crowd. If you're making music, put some effort into it.

4. Attitudes of industry/consumers

This bothers me so, so much. The reason that bands like Family Force 5 and Thousand Foot Krutch and Stellar Kart exist is that no one cares that they aren't good. People don't take the time to actually listen to what they're hearing, and the only result is to push the good Christian bands into obscurity and tarnish the entire idea of Christian music. Why do you think that so many non-Christians hate listening to Christian music? They think it's preachy, derivative and boring, and, if they were to turn on your average Christian radio station, they'd be right at least 90% of the time.

But not enough Christians care. So the Christian music industry continues to put out crappy music, and that many more people go through their lives without ever appreciating what real music is or how good music sounds.

"Well," you might say, "that might be true, but it's the same way with secular music, right? There's lots of crap there. [and I agree, there is] Why is Christian music any worse?" Simply because of this: Christian music has a captive audience.

I know so many Christians who have some sort of vague distaste for secular music. They wouldn't really tell you it's wrong (most of them wouldn't, anyway), but deep down it's what they really think. "Christian music uplifts me," they say. "What's wrong with that?"

Nothing is wrong with that, but how are you being uplifted by mediocrity and mindless Chicken Soup for the Soul platitudes? Are we really that simple? Is that really all we need to reach some sort of higher spiritual plane? And, perhaps more importantly, have we really degraded an ancient art form that has been a part of mankind from the beginning to a point where its worth is not based on quality, but on whether it has some chic spirituality sentiment wrapped in it? Music is worth listening to not because it has some cute little message, but because it's music! Music is designed to make you think, feel, associate, let go, NOT to feed you Christianized fortune cookies!

I realize that I'm going into rant mode now, so I'll end this with two true stories. The first is that Jars of Clay, a few years ago, released a single called "The Valley Song." It's a touching song about loving and trusting God through the rocky parts of life, and it was written after one of the band mate's family members died. Many Christian stations refused to play the song because, rather than making listeners feel good, it reminded them of the trying times that they face. Apparently the station managers had never read, I dunno, Job, or most of the rest of the Bible for that matter.

The second story is about Carlos Santana, acclaimed guitarist who would be shunned by many Christians because he is A) not one and B) very into meditation and New Agey stuff. He wrote a song called "Heaven," which many Christians might recognize if they listened to any radio that wasn't Christian. However, it was recently covered by the acceptable Christian band Salvador, who changed none of the lyrics, and it became a minor Christian hit.

Looks like we're still rejecting the sinners after all.

The Dark Knight, emphasis on the "dark" part (aka I need to make my movie reviews shorter somehow)

2008-07-20T21:47:00.015-05:00

Sorry it's taken me so long to blog. I have been WAAAAY busy, but at least I have a backlog of ideas now.

Warning: this blog will be long, so I've split it up into sections, and I have included a table of contents. Never fear though, it's not book length; the sections are as much for my organization as for your navigation.

1. CONCLUSIONS (spoiler free)
2. ANALYSIS (mild spoilers)
3. COMIC BOOK THEMES (some spoilers)
4. SPECULATION (some big spoilers)

1. CONCLUSION

Here is the part for people who have not seen the movie and want to find out absolutely nothing about the film. As usual, I will attempt to keep the review as spoiler-free as possible, but a few mild ones will slip in every now and then.

Yes. This movie really is as good as people have been saying. Yes. Ledger's performance really is that great, and if he gets an Oscar nom it won't be a pity vote. However, be forewarned: while not graphic in its violence, it is relentlessly intense, and you feel a lot more of violence than you see. It's tremendously well put together, but the darkness might not be for everyone. Ok, now that that's out of the way...

2. ANALYSIS

Watching this movie was like watching a beautifully filmed, lovingly crafted car wreck. Sometimes you want to look away, sometimes you feel like you should feel away to respect the characters' privacy, but you can't. You just can't stop watching this movie. It is one of the most taut, intense movies I have ever seen.

I really need to watch it again to completely process it. All of the pieces fit together, yet it doesn't seem like a "put the puzzle together" film at all. Essentially, it succeeds where Gore Verbinski's Pirates 2 and 3 failed: It takes disparate bits of chaos, and it turns them into a cohesive and gripping whole. You really care about all of the characters, even though they are living in a fantastical world (albeit a realistic version of one).

The film has some excellent themes about sacrifice and morality. One of the central questions the story is how far will (and should) the forces of good go to fight evil. Does the combat of the worst kind of evil necessitate stooping down to the same level to eradicate it? Or can good really be incorruptible? Can Batman stop the Joker (and to a lesser extent, Two-Face), without breaking, as the Joker puts it, "his one rule"?

It now appears that "Batman Begins," itself a formidable and great film, served largely as an introductory movie for the bigger conflict of The Dark Knight (and presumably the last film in the trilogy, as director Chris Nolan has always imagined the films as a trilogy and Christian Bale was signed for three flicks). Indeed, Begins looks much smaller in scope in comparison to The Dark Knight, and much more storyline will be carried over to the next film from this one than Begins carried over to TDK. TDK is also much darker, and not something that kids should see. The story is sweeping, and I'm sure you already know it, but I'll give you a bare bones summary.

Batman continues to successfully fight crime, although some of his admirers are becoming a bit too vigilant themselves. Suddenly, and with two almost quirky (but vicious) displays of violence, the Joker arrives in Gotham and decides that the most fun and amusing way to spend his time would be to break the Batman--corrupt what he stands for, make him break his "no killing" rule, unveil him to the masses and make the masses loathe him. Batman tries to thwart the Joker while remaining pure in his cause.

Meanwhile, Batman's alter ego, Bruce Wayne, is hoping that the new district attorney, Harvey Dent, can be the hero Gotham needs: one with a face and one that plays squarely within the bounds of the law. I mean, Batman is a good guy and all, but he probably breaks some "excessive force" rules when he drops a man from a balcony just high enough to break the man's legs (which, by the way, is a great scene).

Bruce has another reason to want Harvey to succeed as well: if Harvey really ends up being the hero, Batman can hang up his cape and Bruce can lead a normal (well, normal for a billionaire playboy) life and settle down with his sweetheart, lawyer Rachel Dawes. The problem is that, while Rachel knows Bruce is Batman and still loves him, she also has a thing for Dent, and Dent has a big thing for her. Both Bruce and Rachel know they can never be together while Batman still roams Gotham, so any excuse to get out is a good one for both of them. However, Gotham seems to need Batman more than ever, and Bruce is starting to need his cowled persona as well. All of this comes to a head as the Joker, working with what is left of Gotham's mob from Begins, attempts to get revenge on Batman for the mob and create what he calls "a better class of criminal."

All of the performances are stellar, particularly the interplay between Batman, Dent and Lt. Gordon, one of the few straight cops on the Gotham City PD. In fact, the performances are so good that it's almost a shame that Heath Ledger's Joker outperforms them all. Jack Nicholson played the Joker, but Heath Ledger is the Joker. His makeup and scars are pitch-perfect, and he makes for a terrifying--yet at times very funny--villain (I'll be covering this more in the next section).

All in all, it is a gripping, chaotic movie, but not one that sacrifices making sense for chaos. It is the rare movie that lives up to the hype.

3. COMIC BOOK THEMES

As I've blogged earlier, Batman Begins is very faithful to its source material. The element of striking fear into those who intimidate the fearful is key to Batman mythology, and it was played out well in the film.

However, I've realized that, much like the way that Begins gives us Batman's origins in order to set us up for the bigger story of TDK, Begins also gives us the themes of Batman's premise in order to set up the ethical questions and dilemmas that drive Batman's career. Since the Joker is Batman's greatest villain, one of the main questions that has haunted Batman since his incarnation is presented here: Even though Batman has a strict "zero fatality" rule, couldn't he just make one tiny exception and kill the Joker? Joker has no motivation. His evil knows no limits. Wouldn't the world be a better place if the Joker wasn't in it? Batman's qualms about letting him live and preserving his incorruptible symbol vs. getting rid of the Joker and perhaps losing the slim distinction between him and the other "freaks" runs through the entire movie. Other themes that run through the movie are the idea that Bruce has developed a need for Batman and begins to think that he too is incorruptible.

I was a bit worried about the Joker for a while. He didn't seem happy enough in previews. This is remedied quite nicely in the actual film. He somehow accomplishes what only the best Joker comic books do: somehow make the character perversely evil and funny at the same time. The second time the Joker killed someone in the showing I went to, the entire audience laughed. And with good reason, too: while the death was in many ways shocking, it was also very funny. That is the epitome of who the Joker is: finding joy within chaos and destruction.

Ledger also brings out two other important facets of the Joker: his goal of showing others the beauty of madness and his ultimate desire to continue to do battle with Batman forever.

As the movie progresses, the Joker's scheme changes from trying to kill the caped crusader to trying to drive him (and the other heroes of Gotham) crazy. He does this through sundry painful ways which I will not reveal here, but they are used to good effect. This is one of the parts of a specific comic book that I noticed. "The Killing Joke," one of the best Joker stories ever, is focused around the Joker's assumption that anyone can go mad if they have just "one bad day." In the movie, the Joker says that "madness is like gravity. All it takes is one little push." Also present from The Killing Joke is the Joker's constant mangling of his origins, which I thought was a nice touch.

As far as battling the Batman forever, this is laid out when the Joker derisively sneers that he would never want to go back to "ripping off mob bosses." He also croons "you complete me" to Batman, and later saves (albeit violently) Batman's identity from being uncovered. However, this whole display brings up yet another important and oft-asked Bat-question: does Batman bring the freaks out of the woodwork? Does he cause more problems than he solves?

All in all, Ledger and Nolan portray the best Joker that I can imagine coming to the big screen. It's not as good as the Joker in the best comics, but it comes close to some, and anything worthwhile will always be best in its original material.

Harvey Dent (and his decline into the villainous Two-Face) is portrayed well, and it smacks of "The Long Halloween," another one of my favorite Batman comics. While nothing in this movie (or the last one) follows a comic storyline, that's good: comic book movies need to be faithful to the spirit, not the events, of the books. I particularly liked the gradual descent of Dent from playing by the book, although as Two-Face he could have been just a smidgen more sympathetic and carry some themes of the hope of redemption. However, it's a very, verrrrry minor complaint (more on Two-Face in the speculation section).

BIG SPOILER WARNING!

I wasn't sure whether Gordon had actually died, but I knew I was going to be majorly pissed if they killed him. Gordon is far too iconic and important of a character to kill off so early, particularly since he hadn't become commissioner yet. Now, that would have been a comic-book aberration I would have been mad about. Fortunately however, he was still around and ended up bringing a cool element to the film.

END BIG SPOILER WARNING.

Lastly (for this section), I would like to comment on a phrase that's getting tossed around a lot by people surprised by the violence and darkness in the movie: it's not a comic book movie. That is patently false.

While, yes, it is definitely not campy or cartoony in any way, it is definitely a comic book movie. Maybe it's not a Spiderman or Fantastic Four or Superman movie, but it is Batman. This portrayal of this hero--and his portrayal in Begins--are spot on. Many of the best Batman books are exactly what this movie is: weighty, dark (in some cases darker) and violent. Much of the violence is even handled the same way, namely that the graphic portions are implied rather than shown. In fact, I would go so far as to say that this is one of the most faithful movie adaptations of any book I have ever read.

No, it isn't for kids, but no, that doesn't mean it should be rated R. The complaints about this are totally nonsensical. Yes, it probably doesn't help things that TDK has been advertised on, well, anything you could possibly think of, including things sold to children. However, ultimately the responsibility of knowing what is ok for a child falls on the child's parents. Relying on the ratings system in a case like this is lazy, and parents who leave the theatre with frightened children have only themselves to blame. If they weren't sure about the content, they should have looked into it (a cursory Internet search would more than suffice). If they were bullied into it by market saturated kids, well, they need to grow a pair.

In short, it is an amazing example of a Batman comic book movie, but I would not want my children to read certain Batman comic books until they were a bit older. The movie exceeded my expectations for faithfulness, which made me like it all the more.

4. SPECULATION

The end of this movie reallllly had me wondering how the next film will play out. I imagine that Batman's vigilante status will be emphasized, and I'm hoping that his ideals are played out to be worthwhile. It would make sense with how the film series has gone so far: first, with the origins and foundation of his concepts, second, with the questioning of his principles and lastly with the vindication of them (although it will probably not be a wholehearted victory). Of course, Nolan will probably surprise us all.

SPOILERS!

On a more specific note, I'm very much wondering who the new villains will be. I highly doubt that they will recast the Joker (it just wouldn't work, as I think everyone who watches the film will agree). Before I saw the movie, I assumed that Two-Face would be the villain for the final film, but it now appears that he is dead. I hope they find a good way to discover him still alive, for three main reasons:

1. Since he was only around for the back half of the movie, his character (which, while not quite as good as the Joker's, is still rich and possibly more complex) did not get a thorough enough treatment.

2. TDK contained Batman's two greatest villains, but this one was (mostly) the Joker's show. Two-Face needs a chance to shine in a movie where he can be more than an albeit formidable sideshow.

3. Iconic Batman villains that would be climactic enough AND fit Nolan's mold for the series are quickly running out.

Allow me to elaborate on this point (also, if you could comment on which villains you would like to see appear in the third film, that would be cool. I'll post wikipedia links to all of the ones that I mention). Nolan has shied away (wisely so, in my opinion) from villains that have "magic" or cartoony abilities/shticks. While he can change some of these traits to a point (and, in fact, has, particularly with Ra's Ah Ghul, who in the comics has been alive for centuries and has all this magic stuff), it is impossible to divorce, say, Poison Ivy from the fact that she is part plant, emits plant pheromones and has poisonous kisses. Similarly, you can't make Mr. Freeze without the acknowledgement that he's a man who lives in a refrigerated suit and has a freeze gun (it should be noted here: the comic book version of Mr. Freeze is awesome and bears almost no resemblance to the campy-though-hilarious version of him in "Batman and Robin").

The other part of number three, the climactic point, is perhaps even more important. While there are some villains left who would or could pass the test of realism, most of them would seem like an anticlimax when compared the tribulations that Batman has already faced. For example, while, with a few changes, The Mad Hatter would be suitable and even good for a Nolan Batman flick, he would seem like small potatoes when compared to the Joker and Two-Face (this is true in the comic books as well).

Here's the list of bigger Batman villains and their problems with being filmed. I tried to put them in some semblance of supposed likelihood of being filmed, but they aren't in exact order.

Catwoman: Catwoman is being put up by some as the obvious choice, but I'm not so sure. For one, she's not completely evil like most of Batman's other villains. She even moonlights doing hero work at times. Seems kind of anticlimactic, not to mention the fact that she has already been portrayed (and favorably received, though not by me) in "Batman Returns" and (not favorably) in her own movie. Plus, I'm not that big of a fan of her, so there might be a bit of personal bias sneaking in there too.

The Penguin: It should be noted that I think this could be a cool idea, but only if they do the classic Penguin and not the amazingly annoying deformed and stupid version of him that Tim Burton put in Returns. I originally thought they would need more time developing his backstory, but now I think the mob is in place to a point where the Penguin might be able to step into control fairly easily. The problem with this is that, while the Penguin has the potential to be cool, he is oftentimes turned into a laughing stock (even sometimes in the comic books). Also, he has been previously portrayed.

The Riddler: He could be interesting, but most incarnations seems a bit goofy. This be overcome, but there are still a few problems: his obsession with order would seem a step down from the Joker's obsession with chaos, people would still associate him (unfortunately) with "Batman Forever's" Jim Carrey, and it may be hard for some viewers to distinguish him from the Joker, even though their film incarnations would undoubtedly be different. Dang, I'm trying to make these short.

Black Mask: He definitely has potential, perhaps even more so than the Penguin. He can be very intimidating, and his personality is markedly different than most of the loonies that Batman faces. However, there are two problems: the first is that his appearance balances perilously on the line as far as Nolan's comic-book believability. The second is that, what with the modification of Two-Face's disfigurement, Mask's origin may appear too similar to TDK's villain.

Mad Hatter: Would have to be modified to look a bit less goofy and a bit more plausible (with the mind-control).

Clayface: Not realistic or that well known, although some interesting themes could possibly be mined.

Bane: Not realistic.

Mr. Freeze: Although he is a great character, he's not very realistic and it's too soon to bring the character back after Schwarzenegger.

Poison Ivy: One-dimensional, anti-climactic, unrealistic.

Man-Bat: Umm... he's a man that turns into a giant bat?

Killer Croc: No explanation needed.

There are others too, but those are most of the main ones. Of course, Nolan could surprise us all. However, I'm one Bat-fan who's hoping that Two-Face will make a return appearance.

There was some other stuff I was going to write, but this is already too long.

10 movie conventions that must stop

2008-07-08T17:25:00.005-05:00

As great as some movies can be, there is always something that can go wrong. These ten things have been going on for far too long and show no signs of stopping, much to the detriment of the industry. I realize that much of this isn't that original, but some of these things have really been bothering me. I will detail some of these things below. They are in sort-of order and sort-of not order so as to group similar problems.

10. Will Ferrell is not in movies that are very funny or showcase his acting ability.

While I haven't seen very many of Ferrell's movies, I usually find him instantly irritating, which is why I was so surprised to absolutely love "Stranger Than Fiction." Ferrell completely plays against type here, and he does so well that I wanted to see him perform in other roles like this. It's still a comedic role--just watch the movie--but it was more subdued and didn't rely on a constant barrage of dumb, crude humor and annoying personality traits. Also, I thought I should include that I want to see Will Arnett in a funny movie. Most of his movies since Arrested Development have been reviewed as stinkers.

9. Movie trailers give away plot points/best parts in movies.

I'm in good company here; in a recent interview (I'll try to find the link later), Steven Spielberg agreed with me. While I was enthralled with "Wall-E," I wished that I hadn't seen as many trailers for it. While the original teasers did just enough to whet my appetite, further trailers began giving away what I would see. I didn't want to know. I would rather have been surprised. Also, while I know it's necessary to show some of the jokes when you are advertising comedies, trailers sometimes go too far with this and show the best jokes in a movie. If you show us the best joke in a trailer, no one will laugh when we actually watch the film. Example? I bet that the whale bit in "Hancock" would have been much better received had it not been in the trailer. It wouldn't even have been necessary to show it, either. Just have a screen that says "Hancock! Starring Will Smith!" Badabing. Instant money-maker.

8. There are a lot of movies that have completely unnecessary sequels.

I know everyone harps on this, but it's true. While you can occasionally come up with a good sequel to a standalone movie (see Toy Story 2), most of the time (see Pirates 2 and 3, National Treasure 2, Shrek 2 and 3 and basically every other movie that was sequelized and your first reaction was, "wait, what?") you end up getting a mediocre movie, except with more money to spend. Even some movies that were left open to sequels have this problem. One element of these types of movies that make them more annoying is...

7. In many sequels, much of the characters' dialogue is taken up by self-referential jokes about the previous movie.

Remember the first "Pirates" movie, when Johnny Depp asked incredulously where all the rum had gone, and it was funny? Now do you remember "Pirates 2," in which nearly every character talked about rum all of the time all the while mugging the camera as if to say "Rum! Haha! It's funny! Remember? In that last movie all of us were in? That was pretty good, huh? Please, someone. Love me." Similarly, those who watched National Treasure 2 surely got fed up with all of the jokes about the first film and how great it was. Originality falls by the wayside. This leads us to...

6. There are too many movies that are based on something else, and not enough big original releases.

Think about the blockbuster hits so far this year. First there was a movie based on a comic book, then one based on a children's book, then a sequel, then another one based on a comic book, then one based on a TV show, then an original animated movie, then a mostly original idea, although one that parodies a comic book. Soon to come is a sequel based on a comic book (The Dark Knight), then another sequel (The Mummy 3), then a movie based on a cartoon set in between 2 other movies (Star Wars: The Clone Wars). Last year, out of the top ten movies, two were based on comic books, one was based on a TV show, one was based on a TV show/toy line/comic book, three were based on books (albeit loosely with I Am Legend and the Bourne Ultimatum), one was (sort of) based on a theme park ride and six of them were sequels. In 2006 (sorry, this is fun), two were based on comic books, three were based on books (one of the books on a true story), one was based on a theme park ride and four of the movies were sequels.

I don't necessarily have a problem with movies of this nature, but there aren't enough anticipated, promoted movies that are based on an original idea anymore.

5. There are very few 2D movies anymore. Almost all animation is computer generated.

As much love as I have showered on them, I still blame Pixar. Toy Story was so darn good that everyone got on board with the 3D train. The problems?

5a. Many studios seem to believe that making a movie with 3D animation automatically makes it good. This is not true. Good dialogue and story are still required (Disney and Dreamworks, this means you).

5b. Since everything now is a game of technological catch up, the stories are doing the same thing. Dreamworks is the big culprit here. While you can argue about who copied who with "A Bug's Life"/"Antz," Dreamworks later came out with a fish movie close in proximity to "Finding Nemo," (it should be noted that "Flushed Away" also has a few odd Nemo parallels) and they've also copied themselves incessantly (the studio, which has been computer animating for 10 years, already has produced three sequels, Flushed Away is ripping off of "Chicken Run," and three more Shrek movies, a "Kung Fu Panda" sequel and an "Over the Hedge" sequel are in the works or in talks). Disney, meanwhile, has been attempting to ape Pixar's digital whimsy for years, and they also produced "The Wild," which has been acknowledged by pretty much everyone as being a rip-off of Dreamworks' "Madagascar."

5c. While many 3D animated movies look cool, there is a certain whimsy and a certain way of portraying characters and stories that only 2D movies can accomplish. "The Emperor's New Groove" wouldn't have been what it was without the cartoony, slapstick animation. "Mulan" would have probably ended up being a really cruddy faux-3D-anime flick. It just wouldn't have been the same.

Alas, most studios show no sign of going back to the classic format. Ever. "The Jungle Book," anyone?

4. Special effects by themselves do not the movie make.

I am talking to YOU, "Transformers"! While the gargantuan special effects budget managed to distract plenty of the people from the fact that the acting, story, dialogue and pretty much everything in the movie was completely annoying/dumb/both, I am not fooled. "Special effects" in the above statement can also amended to "Special effects and Johnny Depp acting strangely," "Special effects and menacingly glaring young men," "Special effects and Elijah Wood" and...

3. Sex symbols just hanging around for no reason.

While I am not in support of objectifying the female body in any case, I especially hate it when this happens in a movie where it is not in context with the rest of the film (or at least the way the film should be) or when the sex symbol is introduced in a completely contrived way in which everyone (including, but not limited to, the actress) is aware that lust is the only reason that the sex symbol is there. See "Get Smart's" Anne-check-out-my-legs-and-butt-did-you-miss-it-here-is-again-Hathaway, "Transformers'" Megan-dude-I-am-totally-hot-AND-I-can-fix-cars-everyone-watching-this-HAS-to-want-to-sleep-with-me-Fox and "Star Wars: Episode II's" Natalie-wow-this-monster-totally-clawed-at-me-in-just-the-right-way-as-to-not-actually-mar-my-tummy-but-still-show-it-off-to-everyone-Portman for prime examples of this.

2. Movies are not true to the spirit/events of their works.

I know, I know. Everyone whines about this too. But it's true. While no adaptation of a work, be it movie, book, TV show, whatever, will be as good as the source (ie, while "Lord of the Rings" is better in book form, "Star Wars" movies will always best the books made out of them), it is possible to make a good movie out of something else. "The Princess Bride" is a great movie and a great book, the movie does well by adhering the many of the oddball elements that make the book so good. "Batman Begins" is the best of the Batman films because it is the only one that shows Batman as he is the comics. Batman's dark visage is what makes him, and why it took four movies to recognize this is beyond me. One book that should have had its spirit maintained is "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy." Alas, neither the spirit nor the events of the work were kept, resulting in a jumbled mess.

On the other side of the spectrum, while "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe" is a bit dry at parts, it succeeds largely because of its reliance on the events of the source material. This is one of the things that Hollywood screws up a lot. Movies that should have had their events followed more closely include "Prince Caspian" and (I know, I know) the Lord of the Rings (especially "The Two Towers").

1. Filmmakers think that they are oh-so-clever, and thus insert awful and out-of-place political commentary and "satire."

I put this one at number one partly because it's where it fit, partly because this has been an issue in the last two movies I've seen in theatres and partly because it really really bothers me. While the two instances I've criticized in this blog are related to President Bush, I would say the same thing about a joke with Kerry and flip-flopping, Clinton and sex and probably Obama with change (or, if McCain gets elected, McCain and being really old).

While some of these jokes were funny the first time, they are not only dated (in 20 years, if these things are still considered relevant, then it will be historical humor and much easier to digest), they are also the political equivalent of a junior higher who has seen "Napoleon Dynamite" or the Knights Who Say "Ni!": you know, deep down, that the source material had some merit, but it's been lost in a swarm of annoying people who have beaten the joke to death, resurrected it to a creepy zombie and then killed it again.

However, I don't really expect any of these things to change, because the movies that contain them make money.

The End, thank you, goodnight. I'll be watching "Juno" if you need me.

Wall-E World

2008-07-07T19:22:00.005-05:00

Pixar is a good film company. Well, I guess I should say "division" or something now that they are owned by Disney, but their ownership by the Mouse hasn't hurt their product at all. In fact, their only misstep, 2006's completely horrible "Cars" (well, horrible unless you think that Larry the Cable Guy is the funniest man on the planet, in which case you might be slightly horrible), was actually the last film they produced before getting bought out by Disney.

Pixar has had me ever since 1995's "Toy Story," but their work has gotten so much better than that. "A Bug's Life," while not nearly as good as some of their other work, is still a competent, amusing flick, "Toy Story 2" at times surpassed its predecessor (although maybe I'm biased because I love all of the "Empire Strikes Back" jokes) and "Monsters Inc." is still one of the funniest and original animated movie I've ever seen (the funniest, however, is "The Emperor's New Groove").

Then came the big one: "Finding Nemo." While the film is a bit overrated (for all of its humor and the cool animation of the water, it is essentially a well done buddy movie--with fish), Pixar's most popular offering is still a good view. It was the film after this one, however, that makes Pixar a studio that I can still get really excited about: "The Incredibles." You see, with the exception of the kiddie-fodder Cars, The Incredibles is the first Pixar movie to actually delve into themes, making and exploring them better than much of the live action film world. In addition to this, it is also really funny, well-acted and very well-written, perfectly paced and all in all one of my two favorite animated movies ever (the other being the aforementioned "Groove").

After Cars came "Ratatouille," which both continued the thematic layering of The Incredibles and was Pixar's best rendered film (not best, it just had the best animation). And now comes "Wall-E," and it aims to impress.

[very mild premise spoilers ahead] The movie opens on an earth several hundred years in the future. It is an abandoned, lonely place, devoid of all human life (and almost all animal life, save a cockroach). Why? Because humans accumulated so much garbage that the non-biodegradable stuff forced everything else out. The humans (no word on the animals) went off to space on a giant space station, leaving trash cleaning robots to clean up earth so that the humans can return.

In fact, the only sentient being on the entire planet is Wall-E, the only trash cleaning robot who hasn't broken down and probably the only one to somehow evolve a personality. It is his personality and the personality of his love interest that carry the movie. That's right. Much in the way that Ratatouille had us not minding the thought of a rat in the kitchen, in Wall-E you actually care about the romantic relationship between two robots.

This is, remarkably, mostly pulled off in two ways: sound (not dialogue) and movement/expression. Ben Burt, the genius sound editor behind all of the Star Wars and Indy movies, conjured up a gargantuan sound bank for this feature--one big enough so that all of the robots even remotely featured in the flick have a distinct personality, just based on the squeaks, beeps and whirrs they emit. You can tell when a robot is sad or happy based on the sounds it makes (and most of it is computerized or mechanical sounds, and the little that isn't has been made to sound that way) and the subtle movements of its body. They rarely ever cheat on the robots' bodies either, which makes it even more amazing.

When I say cheat, I mean that they don't make the robots' metal parts curve unnaturally. In fact, nothing that any of the robots do looks like something a robot couldn't do. That, in my opinion, is the biggest testament to the success of the film: the movie gets you to care about and like and sympathize with machines, but they don't do it in any way that compromises the robots' machinery.

In addition to the primary love story, there is a great underlying theme to this film: isolation. While the primary love story shows the basic principle that loneliness is good for no one, when the humans in the movie do show up (halfway through the film, leaving the first half to two robots and a eerily yet wonderfully rendered future earth), the movie has some great things to say about self imposed isolation. All of the humans are fat, don't walk anywhere (they have hoverchairs), and they spend all day at a holographic computer console that constantly is in their field of vision. In becoming so immersed with technology--even with the interactivity of technology--they have lost the necessities of real relationships, of life not in front of a computer or on a cell phone. Touch, initiative, experience, all of these things have been forgotten by man. What a relevant message for today's world, where some people get antsy if they haven't texted anyone for too long.

There is, however, one complaint that I have about Wall-E. It's small, but it really bothered me.

At one point in the movie, a corporate CEO/U.S. President (can you see where this is going?) shows up to proclaim that the earth, regardless of the planned cleanup, will never again be habitable. He then proceeds to make a dumb, short speech about how we should "stay the course" and "not try to fix this mess we made." Wow. "Get Smart," just when I thought you couldn't get any more heavy-handed than having the President reading children's books to kids on the eve of a nuclear attack, Wall-E shows you up.

Again, while I have no problem with political satire, the above scene is A) not funny, B) not original and C) completely unnecessary. This movie could have been the most political thing in the world. It could have made fun of obesity, but it chose not to. It could have been a preachy environmental flick, but it took the high ground. In short: the movie could have had an agenda, but it chose not to cheapen itself by being dated or whiny. Except this one scene. The rest of the movie has an entirely timeless feel about it, but this one scene was so unbearably preachy and uncalled for that it just nagged at me slightly for the rest of the movie. So unnecessary. But fortunately, only one blemish on an otherwise great film.

There is more I could say about this movie. The score is excellent, it's funny in a sweet sort of way, it's beautifully rendered and so much more. But you should just go see it. And see it while it's still in theatres; it will look even better there.

Don't diss topians

2008-07-03T10:58:00.003-05:00

Pardon the awful pun. I couldn't help it. Also, I may reveal mild spoilers in the text below, but I've tried to keep it out of that area.

Very recently, I had the chance to read two of the foremost dystopian future novels, "1984," by George Orwell and "Fahrenheit 451," by Ray Bradbury. Earlier in the year, I read another of the foremost dystopian novels, "That Hideous Strength," by C.S. Lewis. Since the books have similar setups (set in the vague future, oppressive society up to no good, etc.) but different approaches, I thought it would be good to compare the three, especially since they are often mentioned in conjunction with each other.

1984 is by far the most famous book of the three, but it was my least favorite.

The government: English Socialism, commonly referred to Ingsoc or the Party. The world has been split up into three large countries: Oceania (The Americas, South Africa and the British Isles), Eurasia (Mainland Europe and Russia) and Eastasia (China, India, Mongolia, Japan and the surrounding area. What is left is fought over among the three countries.

Themes: Rule through ignorance, subversive language and technology, the quest for power

The book starts out very promisingly, as it appears to be an indictment of Communism and Socialism by showing how such ideologies always end up with the very thing they supposed to decry and how they could appear several years down the road (the book was published in 1949). The main character, Winston Smith, is a Party drone who questions all of the nonsense that the Party throws at him and everyone else (for example, their constant and comprehensive altering of past news articles in order to always prove party predictions right). He often questions whether or not it might be he who is insane, since the Party has such control over the past that it has become a merely subjective reality.

However, then a love plot is introduced, and it is done so quite clumsily on the whole. While Orwell does a great job of showing how sexual repression is tied into the ideas of the Party, Winston's love interest is never very likable, nor is she believable. When, for example, she tells him that she has slept with many other men, how are we to know that her shenanigans with Winston are not simply another, to paraphrase Winston, "rebellion below the waist," especially because the pair had previously almost no connection in any way?

The books strongest points are in explaining how the Party works its magic. They have invented a language that they are slowly developing in order to shun creative thought, because how can people think of concepts like freedom when absolutely no words even resembling them are in existence? Using language (or the lack thereof) to control thought is one of the best parts of the book. Similarly, many of their other methods are very well explained and reasoned. Unfortunately, this led to my biggest complaint about the book.

While Orwell does a great job of explaining the how of the Party's workings, he is entirely unsatisfactory in explaining the why. The greatest why, he said, is power. Power is an end unto itself. While I think that some people buy that, I think that to have an entire ruling elite based solely on power is implausible. The rulers of the party still live like members of a slightly poorer middle class, they still are chased about by the thought police, they have none of the trappings that power can bring. While they explain that they are drunk with the power to mold minds and hearts, it still seemed like a bit of a stretch.

In summary: While it is well written, 1984 lacks sufficient motives for its villains, the love story is unsympathetic and the pessimistic worldview becomes a bit dreary by the end.

That Hideous Strength is not as well known as the other two books, but it is excellent all the same. It can be read alone, but it is also the third and best book in Lewis' excellent space trilogy. It is actually not primarily concerned with describing the oppressive regime, but its makeup functions as the underlying vehicle that moves the plot.

The government: Great Britain's present government, but one that is slowly taking away civil liberties. They have allowed the National Institute for the Coordination of Experiments (the NICE) to use a large part of a small English town to conduct dubious experiments, and suspicious things are happening to those who aren't in line with the program.

Themes: The brokenness of a faithless existence, the worship of science, the slow chipping away of freedom.

The book explores a committee of people who believe in the supremacy of man, but those in the know realize that they're simply serving another master, although they think it's someone different than it really is. The book is especially relevant now in a society of increasing atheism and, oddly, even more so now that the Supreme Court has allowed eminent domain to have an unchecked power.

The committee enlists the help of an young, educated but clueless man, who soon grows uneasy about some of NICE's activities. However, the threat of retribution keeps his serving the committee, while their experiments begin to fill their religious void by becoming more and more mystical.

Like many of Lewis' books, the themes of the book are more interwoven than actually stated. While this book is probably the most overtly Christian of the three (the first being the least, the second being a Christian allegory), much of what is learned about the power of the divine over darkness is shown rather than said.

General Overview: While the book is not a primarily dystopian work, the themes of all parts of the book are good, and the dystopian future looks at times eerily similar to where we may be headed.

Fahrenheit 451 is more famous than That Hideous Strength and less famous that 1984, but it was my favorite of the three.

The government: A powerful, vague, authoritarian one that was created out of the general laziness and mean-spiritedness of society. In this book, it's not the government that made us who we are, it's us.

Themes: jealousy, apathy, the importance of thought, the resentment of the lazy.

The one hurdle you have to jump in this book is Bradbury's incessant use of metaphors. It's not bad (although a few at the beginning are a little off), but you just have to get used to it. Once you do, this book is great.

The story revolves around a fireman named Montag. The catch? In the future, rather than putting out fires, firemen light fires--specifically, they burn books and the houses that contain them. It's the why of this statement that makes the book for me.

While you at first believe the answer to the why to be a 1984-style "we can't let the masses become to smart or they will overthrow us all," the reason given is a much different--and, in many ways, much worse--one. As it is so icily and matter-of-factly explained to Montag, book reading is illegal because the people wanted it that way.

Turns out, people became so apathetic that most people didn't read at all anymore. However, there were a few intellectuals who still read and who still thought and who still didn't live for cheap entertainment. Unfortunately, the lazy, stupid masses didn't like that, because who likes the smartest kid in class? No one. Rather than to focus on self-improvement, society dictated that those who wanted to take the extra time to become smart should be punished. When the government finally instituted book burning, it was something society was already comfortable with.

Wow. Talk about eerie. I know people who don't read at all. I know people who take a kind of ignorant pride in the fact that they don't learn things and they don't read and they don't care. "Who needs books?" they seem to be saying. "I get along fine with what I already know." It's as if the little kid who thought he got on fine without being able to read has grown up and not changed his mind. "There are better things to watch on TV, and it's easier to understand." While Bradbury's future isn't likely to come to fruition (not for a long time, anyway) the seeds of it are already in place, and the book serves as a scathing indictment of a culture that's entertained by Runaway Brides and Natalie Holloways, all the while shunning anything that requires thought processes.

Summary: Well written, beautifully-crafted monologues, excellent view into the characters' minds and one of the best societal criticisms I've ever read.

P.S. If you want something really good by Orwell, read "Animal Farm."

'Get Smart' needs to follow its own advice.

2008-06-20T20:23:00.005-05:00

I remember getting ready to watch the film version of "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" for the first time. I was excited. I was not nearly the fan that I am now (I had only read the first three, and I believe the first one was the only one I had read multiple times), but I was still eager to see one of my favorite books brought to the screen.

Sadly, I was disappointed.

The casting for Arthur and Ford was perfect (or, for fans of the books, "prefect." haha). The voices for Marvin and the guide are also great, and the Heart of Gold is good for some gags. Most of the rest of the movie, unfortunately, falls short. Trillian is boring, Zaphod is awful (and his two-headedness is not handled correctly at all) and neither the spirit nor the events of the books are respected. There are some nods here and there, but that's all.

Now while some TV shows, books or video games aren't really adaptable to the silver screen, Hitchhiker's could have been done very well. It has worked in book form, as a TV show, as a video game (sort of) and in its original format as a radio broadcast. The manic absurdity could translate quite well to the big screen. But, alas, it didn't. What a disappointment for Douglas Adam's fans.

All of that to say that film adaptations of other things are tricky. Let's look at few, shall we?

Comic books are a mixed bag. Lord of the Rings-some loved them, others didn't (I being among the latter group, for the most part). Narnia-the director seems to have trouble balancing adventure with truism to the books. The Bourne movies-Well, all 8 fans of those books were probably disappointed. Dudley DoRight? Ugh. George of the Jungle? I haven't seen it, but I've heard ugh. Rocky and Bullwinkle? Well, I actually liked that one. As a fan of the show and of the movie, I liked that the goofball awful pun plot contrivance spirit of the show carried over. However, the point remains. When you make a film adaptation, someone is going to complain.

Get Smart would seem to be a perfect candidate for a film adaptation. There's slapstick, wordplay, funny gadgets and appeal to multiple age groups. Plus, it has Steve Carell, who can make almost anything funny, Anne Hathaway, The Rock, Alan Arkin and other stars. It could a be a film that's fun for the whole family. Right?

Shoulda woulda coulda, unfortunately. The plot sounds fun enough: Agent Maxwell Smart is promoted after all of the other agents' covers are blown. He and the one remaining covert agent go to Russia to find nuclear weapons held by terrorists. Max is betrayed, escapes, and foils the nuclear attack on the President (although the movie seems to indicate that if the President is Bush, death by radioactive explosion might not be so bad. More on that later). If any of that is a spoiler to you, you probably were expecting a completely different movie altogether.

The most unfortunate part is that Steve Carell does a great job, and the other actors do well too. There's even a quite funny cameo by Bill Murray. The writers, too, unearth a few gems in their screenplay (including a few genuinely funny show references, a sly remark about the self-importance of actors and a few other clever, unexpected jokes). However, when I say unearth, there's something the writers were unearthing it from.

A lot of reviewers are giving this film lower marks because they feel like it's uneven. They feel that the action scenes and some of the violence don't always mesh with the quirky comedy. I disagree. I think that the action works with the comedy, kind of because there are jokes thrown into the fight scenes so it's not action scene/comic scene/action scene/comic scene the entire movie. However, I did feel that the film was uneven.

Now, this is the point where, if my mom ever reads this, she will purse her lips slightly with mild, concerning disapproval (I really do appreciate your concern, Mom). I don't mind all sexual jokes. I occasionally tell sexual jokes. They can be funny if they aren't disgusting and if the movie isn't in love with them. But they can also be unfunny and stupid. This is what happened a lot of the time during this movie.

Whenever the movie was about to get into a comedic groove, the writers would throw in a couple of uncreative sexual jokes, including a homosexual sight gag that no one needed to see. In addition to this, the camera very annoyingly seems to find new angles and ways to ogle Anne Hathaway's body. She knows it too. You can tell just by subtle facial expressions that she gets when she thrusts out her chest during a dance or bares most of her leg; she's totally thinking, "Yeeeeah, I'm sexy. Get some." And it detracts from the film.

The other thing that I thought was stupid, and this is more just an aside about the movie biz in general, is the movie's "political satire" of George Bush. Don't get me wrong, satirizing politicians can be really funny. But this wasn't funny. Nor was it satire. The one bit of satire (the President reading books to kids in a library) is rather displaced, and it's not really even amusing. The rest of it, which includes the President falling asleep during a concert, the President laughing at a conductor getting tackled and the President taking juvenile joy in a man's exposed butt, isn't satire, nor is it something that ANYone hasn't seen before. Seriously, this is one of the oldest shticks that is still popular in Hollywood, and it needs to end. It reminded me of (the bad movie) Transformers, where the President has a southern accent and wants to eat some ding dongs, and this is satire somehow. Except not at all.

Overall, it was a moderately funny movie with some annoying persistent stupid gags. I'd watch it again, but not for a good amount of time.

Beatle Blog - Revolver

2008-06-17T15:25:00.006-05:00

"Revolver" is the first of the "later era" Beatles albums and it was a crossroads for the band: after tinkering with new musical sounds on their last effort, "Rubber Soul," The Fab Four began to really dig deep on Revolver, culminating in their months-long recording and mixing of their tour de force next album, "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band." Revolver was a transition, not only for them, but for the music world. It was one of the first albums in which a band cared as much about the musical composition of the album as they did about touring.

As I said in my review of "Help!," albums were things that were made so that they could be sold at concerts. They weren't nearly as musically important as they are now. People didn't put nearly as much time into them. "Please Please Me," the Beatles' first album, was recorded in a single day. The album was about rock and roll alone. Musical innovation was saved for later.

So, how did this album make music history? Well now...

Let's start with the drugs. While many point to Sgt. Pepper's as the Beatles' obligatory drug-induced album, I would point to Revolver as the album in which drugs played a more influential role. Consider that Sgt. Pepper had one song that was about pot ("Fixing a Hole") that might have been (although the band denied it) about LSD, with a few rumored drug references in some of the other songs.

Revolver, on the other hand, has four songs that are about or directly inspired by drugs of different kinds ("She Said, She Said," "Tomorrow Never Knows," "Got To Get You Into My Life" and "Dr. Robert"). Once again, the Beatles helped usher a new musical element-the drug song-into the mainstream musical consciousness.

That wasn't the only druggy part of the album, either. One night, while Paul was significantly stoned, he accidentally threaded some tape backwards and was giddily delighted to discover the odd and frenetic sounds that came out of his tape player. Thus, backmasking, recording some of the elements of a song backwards, was born. Backmasking has been a huge element in recording since the time of Revolver, so I guess we have pot to thank for it.

Another huge innovation that appeared for the first time on this album was double tracking voices. Previously, if you wanted your voice to be accompanied or echoed a little by the same voice, you would have to record an entirely new track to do so. New technology allowed the Beatles to simply layer their voices over, saving lots of time and helping to enrich the musical atmosphere. Enough about how groundbreaking this stuff was though, let's get to the music.

The album starts out a rockin' tune: the first George Harrison track to be really good, Taxman. This was as close to political as the band ever got, with Harrison complaining about how both sides of the political aisle are responsible for oppressively high taxes. The lyrics are witty, but the highlight of the track is a blistering guitar riff by Paul McCartney.

The Beatles were foraying across all kind of musical territory with this release, and they followed up the rocky Taxman with the urgent, string laden ballad "Eleanor Rigby." This was one of their #1 singles, and it's one of the saddest songs in the Beatles' catalog.

The third track, "I'm Only Sleeping," was one of the songs in which musical innovation played a key role. In order to get a wispy, dreamlike feel for the song, the band supplemented the casual bassline and light drumming with a guitar solo by Harrison. The twist? Harrison practiced playing the solo backwards, and he recorded it backwards onto a forward recording tape. He then rethreaded the tape so that the tape was playing backwards, thus playing the guitar solo forwards yet giving it an altogether different sound. It works, too.

After I'm Only Sleeping comes "Love You To," one of George's more unfortunate attempts to sound Indian, and "Here, There, and Everywhere," one of Paul's more popular melodic pieces. Now, before I go any further, let me say a brief word about what might be the Beatles' most maligned track, "Yellow Submarine."

First of all, the song is meant to be a nursery rhyme. John and Paul wrote it as such, and they wrote it for Ringo to sing, which explains the voice. So, while to criticize it as a normal song is unfair, it actually holds up rather well in musical complexity. Laden with submarine clips and a bridge with a nautically-placed on-board conversation, the song also conveys its party atmosphere quite well, with a large, raucous, laughing chorus to sing the last part of the song. So don't be hating on the Beatles because of this song. That would, quite honestly, be a bit ignorant of you.

Following Yellow Submarine is "She Said, She Said," a song that Lennon wrote about an experience during a bad trip. It has one of Ringo's more admired drum tracks on it, providing an atmospheric shell to the song, while the guitar riffs echo the vocal lines.

After this, we enter the "Paul is really awesome" section of the album with "Good Day Sunshine." While the chorus is repeated a bit too much, his cheerful, upbeat voice and one of the happiest pianos you'll ever hear combine to make a song you can't help but be charmed by. After this is "And Your Bird Can Sing," a John song with a really good guitar riff and energetic vocals.

Paul hits you with some more awesome on "For No One," a song with piano and string bits emphasizing the beautifully sad vocals. It used to bother me that this song ends relatively abruptly, but I think that perhaps Paul meant it to sound that way. It seems to mirror the lyrics, about a love that was cut off too soon.

"Dr. Robert" follows For No One. It's a standard rock song, not a lot standing out. After that is George's "I Want to Tell You," which is pretty interesting. The song is about how George has trouble expressing himself in words to people. While the lyrics are rather simplistic, the most noticeable part of the song is a few notes played repetitively throughout the piece. They are mildly dissonant the entire time, making the listener uncomfortable and allowing George's point about his verbal discomfort to be illustrated aurally. It's a good effect.

Now we come to the album's standout track, Paul's "Got To Get You Into My Life," an ode to marijuana (although its vagueness initially led some to believe it was a love song). Paul styled this album in the ways of the Motown and soul genres, and the main instruments on the track are horns. The star of the track is Paul's voice, however, as he tears through this track with some of his best reaches in any of the Fab Four's albums. This is a must-hear.

The album ends with an odd, yet influential, John creation: "Tomorrow Never Knows." Not content with inventing world music on Rubber Soul and backmasking on this album, John decides here to invent psychedelic music. Inspired by LSD and the Tibetan Book of the Dead, John created this trippy song's lyrics. The music, however, was supplied by all of the members. While it is notable for Ringo's drumming, which fits the song while somehow being separate from it, it is most noted for two musical innovations: tape loops and the echo on John's voice.

Paul discovered that a weird saturation effect occurred when you messed with tape loops in a certain way. The loops kept on running over themselves, giving anything you recorded an infinite loop sound. The band looped several different instruments and sounds, then edited them before putting them into the song. The sounds make for a distinct, surreal atmosphere.

The voice came from John's desire to sound like a monk singing from a mountaintop. He told his producer, George Martin, that perhaps they could hang him by a rope from the studio ceiling and then swing him around the microphone. Martin wisely nixed this idea, telling John he'd look into it. What they ended up doing was routing John's voice through a Leslie speaker cabinet, a speaker usually used for the vibrato electric organs heard on so many 60s rock tracks. The vibrato is transferred to his voice.

In short, Revolver is one of the most influential albums of all time. It is ranked as the number one album of all time by some music sources, and it is home to some of the Beatles' best work.

What it did for the Beatles: Helped George emerge more as a songwriter, established their desire to make truly innovative studio work, started their psychedelic phase, established the artistic freedom they needed to make Sgt. Pepper, etc.

What it did for the music world: Hard to overemphasize this. Introduced backmasking, one of the first psychedelically-tinged albums, showed nearly unprecedented craftsmanship in album-making, introduced double tracking and editing voice through Leslie speakers, probably some other stuff that I don't know. Seriously folks, this is a big one.

Album Highlights: Taxman, Eleanor Rigby, Good Day Sunshine, And Your Bird Can Sing, For No One, Got To Get You Into My Life, Tomorrow Never Knows. Yes, I know that that's half of the album.

Ryan's Beatle Ranking: #3 out of 12, just behind Sgt. Pepper's and Abby Road.

Next on Blogging the Beatles: Rubber Soul

What a super list!

2008-06-11T12:47:00.005-05:00

All that talk about comic books and superheroes got me thinking about super hero movies. Thus, I have compiled a list of my top ten comic book/superhero movies. Keep in mind that I have not seen every superhero/comic book movie, so if you are sad that:

Either Fantastic 4 movie

The Punisher

The old Superman flicks

The old Captain America flicks

Either Hulk

Sin City

Supergirl

Men in Black II

A History of Violence

V for Vendetta

The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen

Daredevil

Elektra

are not on this list, it's because I've never seen them, although I have heard that most (but not all) of these are pretty bad movies.

My criteria for this list was that the movie had to be either based on a comic book or done in a comic book style, and it should contain adventure action (so, no Garfield. Sorry folks).

A good comic book story has lots of neat action, but it also has a good story and themes to think about. However, as you'll see from my list, some of the best comic book movies that have been adapted don't accomplish this all of the time. Comic books have been an often-mined-yet-not-done-incredibly-well genre up until the last few years. I think there have been strides made as of late, but the industry has a way to go. Here's my list.

10 - Batman & Robin

Ok, so I'll admit it, my first entry on this list completely negates my good plot, good action bit in the above paragraph, but that's ok with me. Here's why I like this movie when everyone else hates it: it's a spoof. There is no way a movie that is this absurd can't be a spoof. While there is a light mocking of Batman through the ages that pops up all over the film, it's primarily concerned with mocking the Batman TV show. The campy lines, the wonderfully impractical gadgets, the implausible and over-the-top villains. All of that is ripped right off of the TV show and put to a more modern skewering. The funny thing is that the TV show (and the TV show movie, which is good in its own way) was skewering the original comics. People complain that some people view Batman as a joke because of the show, but the oldest strips weren't fearsome. They were amusingly silly stories and horribly expositionary dialogue. The show just riffed on it, and Batman & Robin riffs on the show. Plus, how can you not like Mr. Freeze? "Let's kick some ice!"

9. X-Men

The X-Men series is incredibly uneven, but the first one I liked well enough to want to continue watching. Mostly because of Magneto. Magneto is one of the best villains in any superhero movie. He's cold, vengeful and motivated, but he can show his human side when he wants to. Thus, while I wasn't big on some of the other X-Men in this film (read: Sabretooth and Toad), there were enough cool things and a good enough plot to keep it interesting. Favorite part: Magneto blatantly ignoring the laws of magnetism by controlling bullets.

8. Men In Black

I know, I know. This isn't a superhero movie. However, it is based on a comic book, and there are cool gadgets and stuff, and they do heroic things. So, it's kind of like a wise-cracking Batman. Oh wait, that's Iron Man. But still.

The story is thin in some places, but this movie is about experiencing the aliens and the great, great comedic pairing of Tommy Lee Jones and Will Smith. Jones does an excellent straight man to Smith's wide-eyed recruit. That's the best part of the movie to me.

7. Spiderman

His origin has a lot of charm, and I like the Green Goblin a lot. This one loses points for not having enough action and for having many too many Mary Jane/Peter Parker alone moments.

6. Superman Returns

Forget Brandon Routh. Kevin Spacey makes this movie. He plays Lex Luthor with such energy that it steals the show. The other characters put in solid performances as well, but the only non-Luthor scene that can equal the fun of Spacey's work is Superman's saving of a falling airliner. Favorite Part: "Have you heard of Prometheus? No, of course you haven't."

5. Spiderman 2

This movie is my favorite of all of the Spiderman movies. I liked Spidey 3 fine, but it's so much better when viewed on a big screen, and the acting by Maguire and (if you can imagine) Dunst is subpar to the other entries in the series. Spidey 2 has a sweet villain, fewer Peter/MJ moments, the best story and best overall cool factor out of the three films.

4. Iron Man

Ok, so, regardless of my jab at Iron Man earlier, it really is a good movie. Unparalleled in cool effects or clever wisecracking, this movie also has a good story and themes. Great performance by Robert Downey Jr.

3. The Incredibles

Not a comic book, but an homage to several and done in the style of a good one. Besides, I hear that the movie is more faithful in some aspects to The Fantastic 4 than the actual movie was. Great dialogue, great story, great villain.

2. X2: X-Men United

This is by far the best out of the three X-Men movies. The story is complex and engaging, the villains are, well, Magneto, the action is good and the acting is the best of the series. Good stuff. Favorite part: "Too much iron in your blood" and the aftermath.

1. Batman Begins

Excellent themes, engaging and twisting plot, true to the comic books, believable (for a comic book movie), action-packed and gripping. Batman is great hero, and this movie finally does him justice.

Comic sans ridicule

2008-06-11T10:16:00.010-05:00

So, at the end of this last school year, I started reading comic books. I have, as I'm sure most of you have, seen many comic book superhero movies, and I wanted to see what was behind the inspiration for these movies. I wanted to immerse myself in just one title, so I could really get into the stories, so, after some research to decide which comic book series sounded the coolest (yes, I did comic book research. Yes, I'm a nerd), I picked Batman. And I am now slightly addicted.

Comics are really a new medium for me. It's kind of a cross between a movie and a book. In a book, the story is moved forward entirely in the reader's imagination. Obviously, the writer gives the reader signposts to base their imaginings on, but it really is up to you.

With movies, it's the opposite. Movies are purely the triumph of the filmmakers' imagination. We see all sorts of truly impressive things, but we're (for the most part) just taking in the creativity of other people.

Comics are a different format than both books and movies for two reasons. The first reason is that they feature a unique blend of showing you the action and letting you imagine the action.

They have plot exposition, but only enough to show you what's going on. You get the rest by reading the dialogue and--primarily--by looking at the artwork. They have fight scenes, but not enough panels to show you all the action. You get the entire scene in your head, with the artist showing you some of the most impressive frames. You see the fear in criminals minds, the menace of the evil masterminds, but it's up to you to fill in the backlog of escapades that have made each character so legendary.

The other difference is that, in some ways, comic books can be more visually expressive than either other medium. Granted, books truly are limitless. You can have a writer like Terry Pratchett, who has made up the color octarine, or you can have other writers who speak of multidimensional beings, but even these descriptions are limited by our imagination. Sure, we can read about octarine, but it is impossible for us to think of a color that we've never seen before, let alone one that doesn't exist. The other thing with books (and don't get me wrong, books are still my favorite medium, by far) is that the images that books create, while vivid, don't have any way of being viewed other than in our mind's eye. In a comic book, the writer, penciller and inker work together to show what their image was supposed to look like.

With a movie, well, as much as everyone wants to talk about how movies are now, basically, limitless, this is just not true. With live action, no one will be able to fully pull off the manic evil or the rictus grin of the Joker. In animation, well, you'd think it would be better, but sometimes still images still pack a more visceral punch than animation. Observe a two images from the most common animated Joker.

Now, a picture of Jack Nicolson, that other guy from the 60s and Heath Ledger as the Joker:

Here are some comic book versions of him:

I think the comic book Joker comes out on top, and I can't think of how those images could be fully transferred to the screen. I'm not blasting the film or animated versions of Batman (although some of them, like Batman Returns, are pretty darn awful). But the source really is the best here.

Anyway, I really am getting into Batman. He's really cool for one thing, and a lot of his comics offer interesting themes. For example, in one of the classic Batman tales, "The Dark Knight Returns," Bruce Wayne comes out of retirement to be Batman in his later years. This book explores aging and feeling out of place, as well as satirizing political correctness and the endless "rehabilitating" of criminals. Oftentimes, comics will delve into the practicality and common sense of whether Batman's decision not to use lethal force is a good one.

Another reason I like Batman is that most of his villains are pretty iconic, and they aren't dumb or campy. For example, Superman's biggest villains are Lex Luthor (ok, so he's pretty cool), an alien, a "Superman" who does the opposite of him, a man made of Kryptonite and this funny looking interdimensional midget. Spiderman, while having a few cool villains, also has a guy that can turn into sand, a strong guy in a rhino suit, a guy made of water, etc. Also, most of his villains are the result of an industrial accident.

While some of Batman's villains are the result of an accident, most of his good villains aren't endowed with powers from their accidents, just creepy psychosis. For example, the Joker, while getting his creepy look from an industrial accident, is insane. He doesn't have some sort of "chemical power." Black Mask has a horribly scarred face, but he's not supernatural. Granted, Poison Ivy and Mr. Freeze both have accident specific abilities, but I will readily admit that Poison Ivy is not a good villain, and Mr. Freeze is a lot more scientific. He can't just shoot ice out of his hands.

I watched "Batman Begins" the other day. It was the first time I had seen it since I started reading the comics. While Begins is a good movie regardless of whether you have read the comics, I liked it even more because it stayed true to the spirit of the books in a way that the other movies don't even come close to. The entire point of Batman is that he strikes fear into the hearts of criminals. The Batman of the 90s movies isn't scary. Maybe a bit in the first movie, but if Michael Keaton prancing around in a Batsuit that can barely move is your hallmark of scariness, you have a problem. The Batman of Begins is a hero you could actually picture villains being scared of.

With comic book movies, you're more concerned that they stick to the spirit of the books. Some events should be kept too, but events are retconned in the comics so much that it's the spirit that's really important. Begins sticks to the spirit. I hope The Dark Knight will as well. Heath looks really, really scary as the Joker, which is good, but he doesn't look happy enough. When the Joker is battling Batman, he's in his element. He's incredibly, insanely happy. That's the unnerving thing about him. I hope they keep that.

Meanwhile, I'll still keep reading the books. I am trying to find some more comics with The Riddler, Two Face and The Penguin in them. It would be nice to find more with Mr. Freeze or Black Mask too. Poison Ivy and Catwoman? Meh.

Beatle Blog: Help!

2008-06-03T10:55:00.003-05:00

I like to split the Beatles albums (they made 12 - not counting the Yellow Submarine soundtrack, which they barely contributed to - 12 albums in seven years!) into early albums and later albums. Since 12 is a good even number, I split them between their sixth album, "Rubber Soul," and their seventh album, "Revolver." The early albums, while still mostly excellent, reflected the current musical thinking of the time, namely that, rather than the main focus of the band, albums were things that you put out in between tours. It seems odd now, but that's basically what albums were back then: catchy promotional material.

Perhaps "Help!" was even more of a promotional album, considering that half of the songs from the album were from the Beatles' movie of the same name. The movie is pretty funny, basing much of its comedy on what made their first movie so popular: Ringo Starr both looks and sounds funny. This apparently never bothered him, and jokes about his nose appear in both flicks (their next movie was the critically-panned "Magical Mystery Tour").

Even so, for promotional material, no one was better than the Beatles. This is one of my favorite albums from their early work.

The album is influenced a bit by the songwriting and musical stylings of Bob Dylan. While I don't really like Bob ("HA duz eet feeull?") because of his absolutely horrendous singing voice, he is a good musician and an ok songwriter, so the influences are welcome on this album. It should be noted that Dylan also introduced the band to pot, which led to all sorts of other drugs (not to mention caused them to often forget their lines during the filming of the Help! movie).

The album opens with the title track, which has a very energetic beginning with some strong bass notes before getting into the rest of the song, which is upbeat folk-rock in nature. This characterizes a lot of Help!, actually, as it often contains jangly tambourine percussion and upbeat acoustic guitar, laced with some subtle vocal harmonies in the chorus. It also contains some of John's best songwriting. The title track is an autobiographical song about John losing control of his life, and he bangs out a few other good tunes on this album as well.

The beginning of the album really is great, as track two is "The Night Before" by Paul McCartney. Paul's vocal range really is astounding at times, and this song showcases it well. This song is also very upbeat, with an energetic bassline and a small electric guitar solo by George.

John is up again with the Dylanesque "You've Got to Hide Your Love Away," which is mostly just John playing the guitar with a tambourine in the background. It's very good, however, with John making his voice a bit more forlorn and shouting "Hey!" into the mic during every chorus. This one will get stuck in your head.

The Beatles, while sometimes behaving like jerks to outsiders, usually protected each other and made musical concessions to all of the members. As such, on most of their early albums, John and Paul would let George write and sing a few songs (even though they didn't think much of his songwriting ability), and they would write or pick a song for Ringo to sing. Ringo has an odd nasally sounding voice, but it usually suits the music he sings. Not so on Help!, as he sings lead on a cover of "Act Naturally." This song forced Ringo to go a lot higher than he usually does, resulting in a slightly off-key, shrill sounding song (as much as a nasally deep voice can be shrill). George's first lyrical contribution is also not too great on this album, with "I Need You" feeling slow and unoriginal.

I Need You is followed by "Another Girl," an catchy enough song by Paul with just enough flourish on the electric guitar to keep it interesting.

One interesting facet of the Beatles' early work is that, while they do show skill in their instrumentation, the instrumentation often takes a back seat to their vocal abilities, which are very, very good (this swung the opposite way once they made "Revolver"). This album often shows symptoms of this, with electric guitar flourishes and vocal acrobatics being the only "finishing touches" put on a basic rhythm track, like on Lennon's "You're Going to Lose that Girl." However, the vocals are so good that the song is still fun to hear.

After the aforementioned song, one of the Beatles' #1 singles, "Ticket to Ride," is on the docket. While not one of my favorite singles, it has a fun bass line and it's catchy.

After a few rather inconsequential songs, the back end of the album really shines. First, there is the obviously folk-influenced "Tell Me What You See," with some fun electric piano fills. There is also some really neat extra percussion used in this song. Then, well...

Sometimes, when I listen to a Beatles album, I am overcome by an "Oh-my-gosh-Paul-McCartney-is-so-awesome" moment. This happens every time I hear "I've Just Seen a Face," one of Paul's best compositions. It's a pretty simple track, containing just minimal percussion and three acoustic guitars (George's was a 12-string, but I'll save discussion of that for "Hard Day's Night"). But simplicity in this case is musical genius, as Paul expresses his excitement over falling for a new girl. He speeds through the lyrics and the guitars run along with him, giving the track an enthusiastic optimism that one is hard pressed to find anywhere in music.

After this song, well, there's this little ballad that is probably the most popular song in the entire world, ever. And no, I'm not exaggerating. According to wikipedia, Paul's "Yesterday" is the most covered song in the entire world, boasting over 3,000 different recordings. Read that again. Three. Thousand. Recordings. The song was the most played song on American radio for eight years. Possibly the most ironic thing is that the other Beatles didn't really like the song, feeling that a sentimental ballad went against their style. The song is quite beautiful, consisting solely of Paul playing a melancholy acoustic guitar and singing, with his beautiful voice, about the girl who left him. He is accompanied by a string quartet.

The album finishes up with a fun cover, "Dizzy Miss Lizzie."

Analysis: Overall, this album is the Beatles' fun, catchy tribute to folk-rock. It also contains a lot of their iconic early years material. The cohesive style holds the rollicking, sunny album together, and the tunes will surely be fighting for space in your head. Definitely check this one out.

What it did for the Beatles: Well, since "Yesterday" gained prominence as a single, not as a song on this album, this album mostly served to promote their movie and their new single, Help!

What it did for the music world: Folk was not a very popular genre in the early 60s (this album came out in 1965), which is not unsurprising when you consider that the king of folk at the time was Bob Dylan, who people enjoy now but honestly sounds as if a cheese grater is being yanked over his vocal cords. Groups like The Lovin' Spoonful; Peter, Paul, and Mary; the Mamas and the Papas and (with this album) the Beatles helped to make folk more palatable to the public.

Album Highlights: Help!, You've Got to Hide Your Love Away, I've Just Seen a Face, Yesterday

Ryan's Beatle ranking: #7 out of 12

Next on Blogging the Beatles: Revolver

Blogging the Beatles

2008-06-01T18:09:00.002-05:00

I have decided, after a bit of thought, to review all of the Beatles' albums in between my normal reviews. The reasons I have decided to do this are threefold:

1. I know a lot about the Beatles, and I think writing about them is fun.
2. Hopefully, other people who like the Beatles will learn or take something from what I write.
3. Perhaps, the musically uneducated--those who talk about how the Beatles weren't so great and always attempt to "prove" their point by singing the chorus to "Yellow Submarine"--will read some of these blogs and realize what the Beatles did for music.

However, before I jump into reviewing, I thought I'd give a bit of a background on the group and some of the other players in their lives. The reason I'm doing this is because I'll attempt to explain different things about each album, like what influenced it and how it influenced music, and background information will be needed.

First, the band:

Paul McCartney
"The Cute Beatle"

Paul McCartney is perhaps the most gifted natural musician ever. By natural, I mean that he can't read music. This has not stopped him from being awesome at it, as he plays guitar, piano, bass, drums (he played all four of those during his Beatle tenure), ukulele, has a great singing voice, has composed a classical music album and--this last part is all instruments that are credited to him on his second to last release, according to Wikipedia--can also play synthesiser, harmonium, flugelhorn, autoharp, organ, spinet, melodica, vibes, glockenspiel, cello and recorder. That's right, folks. Not only is Paul McCartney cool enough to not be ridiculed for including a recorder on an album, but he is also proficient in probably about five instruments that you've never heard of. Also, it should be noted that just being proficient at the melodica alone is incredibly awesome, as you will see by reading the wikipedia entry on it.

Anyway, Paul was and is a great musician. He was also a good lyricist, as you see in my reviews. He tried to be the public face for the band, mostly just to soften to blows that came from John Lennon being a huge idiot all the time. He was probably the most dedicated to the band.

Musical Talent: best
Lyrical Talent: best

John Lennon
"The Political Beatle"

The first thing you should know about John is that, while Ringo was a nice guy, the other three Beatles had their unsavory sides. However, John made Paul and George look absolutely saintly by comparison. The man was a complete and utter tool, which can only partially be blamed on his mother's rotten husbands and subsequent death . John would go up to WWII veterans who had had amputated limbs and pretend to try to shake their hands, he was always ready with an insult for everyone, he absolutely tormented the Beatles' manager and he had a general apathy about kindness, goodwill and all that stuff (how ironic that he would pen "All You Need Is Love").

That might surprise some of you, as John is generally looked on as some kind of saint today, always talking about peace and love and happiness. Most people know his solo song Imagine, which, after it runs all organized religion, particularly Christianity, through the wringer, talks about how if only we all loved one another and worked together, how great it would be. Not only is the song unoriginal, boring, unrealistic and repetitive, it is also markedly different from the way John lived his life.

Anyway, the music. John usually just sang and played guitar and piano. He was good at singing and guitar playing, and he was passable at piano. He was also (contrary to what you might "Imagine") a good song writer, penning such greats as "Revolution."

John started the Beatles, and he was the nasty, insulting public face that squared off against Paul's, nice, slightly ingratiating public face.

Musical talent: third best, just under George
Lyrical talent: second

George Harrison
"The Weird Beatle"

George sang and played the guitar and sitar. While this may seem inferior to the work of John and Paul, George was absolutely crazy good at playing said guitar. Most of the riffs and lead guitar work in the band was performed and recorded by him. George also was talented at the ukulele, bass and other instruments.

George got into Hinduism during his time with the Beatles, and he wrote a bunch of songs about it, most of which aren't very good, although some of the other songs he penned are quite good. However, his looking into Hinduism also resulted in him learning how to play sitar and basically inventing world music, so that's cool. George was probably the most introverted Beatle, although he had a great sense of humor if you could get it out of him.

Musical talent: second, just above John
Lyrical talent: third

Ringo Starr
"Ringo Starr"

Nicknamed due to the excessive amount of rings that he always wore, Richard Starkey replaced the Beatles old drummer, Pete Best, right before the Beatles made it big. This is good because, while Ringo is not the greatest drummer of all time, Pete Best was probably one of the worst. While Ringo is mostly known for having a gigantic nose, he played drums and occasionally sang for the band.

He also wrote two songs of his own during his tenure with the Fab Four.

Musical talent: fourth
Lyrical talent: fourth

Ok, now that that's out of the way, the other players. I won't list everyone here, but I will list the people who had significant impact on multiple Beatles projects.

George Martin: He was the Beatles' producer. He often played piano for them if they needed it, and he seemed to always know when to reign in the boys and when to let their musicality roam into uncharted territory.

Brian Epstein: Brian was the Beatles' troubled, insecure, closeted homosexual manager. He got them record contracts, promotional deals and the like. He was a good businessman; however, he sometimes got the raw end of some of the deals he made (like it mattered, the Beatles still had enough money to practically hemorrhage it). While the Beatles often didn't realize it, Brian helped to keep them grounded.

Yoko Ono: John's second wife. Ok, this is important. Even though all of the stories say that Yoko was the one who broke up the Beatles, remember this: really, she was the one who broke up the Beatles. An artist whose "art" included having sex in a burlap bag, Yoko was incredibly possessive of John, and she demanded to be part of the Beatles' decision-making processes. To show you about how much musical ability she had, one of the albums that John and her released together had a complete album side that consisted only of them screaming each others' names. She enjoyed provoking the other members of the band, and she liked to get John in on the act too (not that he needed any encouragement). So yeah, remember this: Yoko Ono = Beatles killer.

Ok, there's the setup. Now, I will, whenever I feel like it, blog about one of the Beatles albums, selected semi-randomly. The first one on the docket ... their second film soundtrack, "Help!"

Narrow Stairs isn't so narrow

2008-05-26T22:39:00.004-05:00

I was not one of the indie kids who knew about Death Cab back when they made "You Can Play These Songs With Chords," or whatever the name of one of their old albums was. No, I first learned about them when a friend lent me a copy of "Plans." I heard "Marching Bands of Manhattan" coming out of the speakers, and that was it. I liked them. Some of their songs, I liked a lot.

Since then, I've gone back and listened to bits of the other albums, including the entirety of "Transatlanticism." I have also liked a lot (although not all) of their other stuff, particularly the song "The New Year." Plans is still my favorite album, and Marching Bands is still probably my favorite song on the album.

All of that basically to say that I am a casual, not hard-core, fan of Death Cab. Nevertheless, I was excited to listen to Narrow Stairs, even though the single did absolutely nothing for me.

I mean, "I Will Possess Your Heart" grew on me a little after a while, but ultimately it is still just a pretty good bassline with other instrumentation that manages to be sometimes not boring. The lyrics are pretty good, but there aren't enough of them. The creepy stalker dude needs to be developed more.

Anyway, the main thing that everyone seems to commenting on about this album is how dark it is. I've seen the word "despairing" used more than once. While I wouldn't go nearly that far, it definitely was not written at a happy time for Ben Gibbard.

While a lot of their other work has been characterized by this odd kind of melancholy hopefulness, this one is just kind of depressing. However, it's not one of those depressing albums that people have to force themselves to enjoy. While the lyrics can be real downers sometimes, the music keeps things just light enough for us to keep listening and enjoying.

The album starts out on a sombre note with Bixby Canyon Bridge, a song about Gibbard trying to commune with his favorite (also: dead) author, Jack Kerouac. Gibbard's character is slightly haunted by his failure to do so and at his inability to find any real answers. "I trudged back to where the car was parked. No closer to any kind of truth, as I must assume was the case with you." Sad, but beautifully expressed.

Gibbard promised that he would make his lyrics more intelligible, and he does so with great effect on this album. He doesn't sacrifice the beauty of his songwriting; he just makes it so that you understand what he's trying to say. It's probably the best improvement that this album makes.

After the aforementioned stalker single, there's the song "No Sunlight." It's pretty catchy, but it is one of the several songs on the album that confuses the listener's senses.

While putting a sad song to happy music can work sometimes (see the excellent "Fifteen Candles" by Jars of Clay), oftentimes it works against the lyrics. It was hard to feel bad for Gibbard's predicament of being all sad because there's no sunlight while the music was so darn ... well ... sunny. There are actually several songs on the album that are this way, which is probably the album's biggest fault. While it works on the excellent "Cath...," a song about a woman entering a loveless marriage, it doesn't work so well for "No Sunlight," "Long Division" or "You Could Do Better Than Me" (actually, I'm still not sure if that last one is actually supposed to be happy or not).

However, the confusing lyric/music juxtaposition of a few songs notwithstanding, the album really is a good listen. Gibbard's voice has improved since Plans, especially noteworthy on the last song "The Ice Is Getting Thinner." However, my favorite song on the album is "Your New Twin Sized Bed." The jangly beat of the song isn't quite cheerful, and the lyrics manage to be slightly humorous while expressing the apprehension of loneliness, a big theme on the album.

In short: I like it. If you don't have the money, at least find a place to listen to Bixby Canyon Bridge, The Ice is Getting Thinner and Your New Twin Sized Bed.

Indiana Jones and the Highly Successful Quest to Uphold His Own Legacy

2008-05-22T18:53:00.005-05:00

WARNING: Some spoilers may occur. Also, it is long.

I love Indiana Jones. "Raiders of the Lost Ark" is my favorite movie that isn't one of the original Star Wars flicks (and even then, if I'm honest, I might like it better than some of those). It contains the best opening scene I have ever seen (again, competing with the original Star Wars' massive Star Destroyer shot), Harrison Ford's perfect portrayal of the ultimate old-school action hero, a memorable supporting cast, villains like Belloq and that creepy dude with the coat hanger, breakneck--yet not streamlined--action sequences and so much more. And that's only in the first movie.

The second movie didn't really do it for me. Granted, I've only seen it once (the next time I watch it I'll probably enjoy it a bit more), but aside from the looks-like-it-was-pulled-from-a-better-movie opening nightclub shootout scene, much of the movie was lackluster (not a very compelling plot, fakey--even for this series--action and Kate Capshaw playing one of the most annoying human beings in history). Nevertheless, you still have to love Ford's character.

The third film got back to the best parts of Raiders: fighting Nazis and locating biblical artifacts. While not as adventuresome--or as overall fun--as Raiders, "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade's" addition of Sean Connery, combined with increased screen time for John Rhys-Davies and Denholm Elliot, still made for an excellent film that was more than a worthy successor to the brilliant original. It too resides in my top 10 list of movies.

I say this to illustrate my high anticipation for--and slight anxiety about--the new Harrison Ford/Steven Spielberg/George Lucas adventure, "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull." I wanted another movie that would live up to Indy 1 and 3. Jones is one of the best characters in the movies, a reboot of his franchise should do him justice.

While keeping myself mostly in the dark about the plot, I followed the development of the movie with great interest. I cringed a little when it was announced that Rhys-Davies and Connery weren't returning (Elliot is dead, although there is a prominent statue of his character in the new film), smiled when I found that Karen Allen (who played Jones' love in Raiders) was returning and died a little inside when I found out that Shia Labeouf was joining the new movie. Nevertheless, I remained optimistic, but all the while a little voice in the back of my mind was saying "I hope they don't screw it up."

After seeing the film at a midnight showing (and wearing a fedora-type hat), I can happily report that, not only does the film not "screw it up," it rightfully takes its place as another great movie in the Indiana Jones canon. I loved this movie. I absolutely loved it.

(OK BEGIN SPOILER ALERT: This next part is plot exposition. While I try to keep it mildly vague, I can make no promises. If you scroll down, I will have an end spoiler alert where you can keep reading)

It starts by establishing the time period for the film: 1957. Indy has aged 19 years since his last crusade, and the times have changed accordingly. As an American army convoy drives along a lonely New Mexican road, a carload of spunky youths in a hot rod race the car in the front of the convoy. It really does put you in the 50s mindset, as do the Cold War Russian villains, a nuclear test site (one of my favorite parts of the film) and a brief scene attesting to the ignorance of McCarthyism.

Anyway, the convoy is in for a bit of action at the military warehouse that they're traveling to, courtesy of a battered and greying Dr. Henry Jones Jr. He may be old, but that doesn't prevent him from being able to take out the baddies with an odd kind of reckless precision all his own. In fact, one scene where he and LaBeouf's character are in a Peruvian grave site contains one of the best villain deaths of the entire series (you'll know when you see it).

After a circuitous-but-still-loads-of-fun opening (which I will not ruin for you here), Jones meets LaBeouf's unfortunately-named character, Mutt. Let me stop here for a moment and say that LaBeouf does an excellent job in this movie. He's generally not trying to act annoying funny, that slippery slope that worked well in "Even Stevens" but failed miserably in "Transformers." Rather, he skillfully adapts to the humor of Ford and the series. He's a welcome addition.

Mutt and Jones read a letter sent by one of Jones' old professor buddies (he "happens" to be like a father to Mutt) that discusses a mythological crystal skull that he's found which holds some sort of unspecified power. The problem: some wonderfully stereotypical (no, I'm not being sarcastic) Communist Russians are after the skull too, and they've kidnapped the old professor. Thus, Jones and Mutt go to Peru to figure out what the fuss is about the skull and, hopefully, save the professor and Mutt's mom. They do this by flying in small planes that travel in red lines to labeled locales on old maps, one of the great trademarks of the entire series.

Once Jones and Mutt arrive in Peru, they decode some old riddles the professor had given them to track down the downright eerie crystal skull. Sadly, however, not only has the skull driven the poor professor insane, his captors find Jones and Mutt shortly after they find the skull. After they are taken to the Russian camp, they meet Mutt's mom, who is--SURPRISE--Marion Ravenwood, the Indy chick from the first movie (if you can feel a plot point coming on, you're not the only one).

The Russians need the old professor (whose name is Oxley), to show them where the city of gold is--oh, wait, I didn't mention the city of gold that used to house the skulls and promises the returner of the last skull unbelievable psychic power? Silly me. Anyway, old Oxley is loopy from too much time trying to figure out said skull, and the Russians enlist Indy to stare into the skull's eyes for a while so he can halfway communicate with Oxley.

After this, there are about four fight/escape scenes placed within short amounts of time of each other, but it doesn't feel frenetic or forced. Spielberg aptly places the fights at just the right intervals, and each action scene is completely different, and, in some cases, brilliantly inventive.

Once Jones and company escape from the baddies, they find the temple and go to return the skull, but then OH NO THEY ARE STOPPED BY THE BAD GUYS WHO WOULD HAVE IMAGINED SUCH A THING! Actually, most people, because this is what happens in Raiders and Last Crusade, but that's exactly why we want them to be stopped. The villainess then decides to give the skull back so that she can take the power for herself, and of course something mildly yucky happens to her (although it, rather unfortunately, isn't as severe as in Raiders or as inventive as in Last Crusade. Think more like the death of General Grievous from Star Wars III). Actually, this part of the movie was probably the weakest part for me. It was still entertaining, but it wasn't as awe-inspiring/creepy as Raiders or as action-packed as Crusade.

After this, a couple of other fun things happen, but I'll let you watch those yourself. Oh, and if you think I just revealed everything about the plot to you, I didn't. While the Indy movies always appear to have pretty straightforward plots, they are always laden with qualifiers, modifiers and OH WOW I WASN'T EXPECTING THIS moments.

(END SPOILER WARNING: read on for further commentary)

There were several points in the movie that caught me with a big silly 12-year-old-kid smile on my face. Spielberg and Lucas developed another story that brought Indy to life as a death-defying, wise (but not too wise)-cracking action adventure serial hero. They, much more so than Lucas with his Star Wars prequels, respected the original fans of Indiana Jones, and this movie plays just like another great installment of a great movie character. The plot is different from the other movies, but it borrows from them and homages them and generally sticks to their happy-go-lucky, "let's have a fistfight" spirit (adhering particularly close to Last Crusade).

There are two types of sequels: sequels that continue an ongoing story and sequels to a stand-alone story that tell a completely different one. The latter is a lot harder to do well (see Pirates 2 and 3). Indy 4, however, gets the formula right: pay homage to your predecessor, but don't ape it. Recognize and appreciate your roots (even give them a ribbing), but create your own story. Lucas and Spielberg have done that well.

Their story is all new. But who can forget the classic "panicked Indy look" from movies past as new Indy runs scared from his latest would-be killer? It's still there on his face. Who can forget his father and his friend Marcus? No one, and the movie pays tribute to them in fun, unobtrusive ways.

However, possibly the best thing about the movie is that, while you're having fun, you know that Lucas and especially Spielberg were having tons of fun and wanting to share that with their audiences. Not only are the action scenes wonderfully far-fetched and full of daring-do, but even the dialogue is laced with the wit and brazen outrageousness that matches the tone of all four films. Seriously, Indy's one-liners are about as good as ever in this film. At one point, I almost wished he would have been shot simply so that his "last words," as requested by the villainess, really could have been "I like Ike." I mean really, is there any better way to defiantly get mowed down by the Reds?

Anyhow, I've spent more than enough time ranting. Just go see the movie. It is truly a joy to behold.

P.S. I have been seeing many ads for "Kung-Fu Panda" as of late. It looks kind of dumb to me, but today I found out that Dustin Hoffman is in it. This means that I will probably end up watching it sometime.

P.P.S. I almost forgot. In the Indy canon, I rate this one well above Temple of Doom and just a couple of notches lower than Last Crusade. This one, while still containing high action and adventure, wasn't quite as epic as the the first and third installments. I think the reason is because the "thing" that Indy is after isn't biblical. The two films set in the Middle East do have a bit more gravity to them because you sense that the object they are after is more tangibly important. Still, a couple of notches below my fifth-favorite movie is a great place to be.

Backlog: Prince Caspian highs and lows

2008-05-21T20:05:00.003-05:00

(Warning: if you have not read the book, this may contain spoilers)

I saw Prince Caspian on Saturday night. It was a pretty good movie. The slightly melancholy thing is that it could have been a really good movie. However, I was expecting it to be pretty good all the way through, and instead it had an excellent beginning, a solid finish and a rotten middle. So, I can both be pleasantly surprised and a tad disappointed at the overall quality of the film.

The beginning was absolutely great. It was exciting, visually impressive and true to both the events and the spirit of the book. There were a few minor issues with Peter being kind of a jerk, but overall this part of the movie plays out beautifully. I especially liked the portrayal of Nikabrik (right out of the book and just as I pictured him), Reepicheep (who I feared would be turned into a complete imbecile), the part of the movie when Lucy thinks she sees Aslan and the subsequent return to the gorge and walking down the rock path (again, as I watched the rock path and the stream in the gorge, it was if it was taken straight out of my mind’s eye. I was enthralled).

The charm of these opening sequences is only enhanced for those who have read the book. The images are brought to life beautifully, and most of the characters leap off of the screen as supersized images of their literary counterparts. Adamson keeps the pace up and the interest high, even for those who already know the story.

At any rate, I was entirely pleased as I watched the beginning of the movie. Then, Caspian and Peter met. This was where the real problems began for me. Right away, Peter and Caspian begin trading ridiculous verbal barbs, and your dislike of Peter begins to grow and grow. Andrew Adamson, the director of the film, said that the reason he put this odd conflict between Caspian and Peter (which only grows larger and more annoying as the film progresses) is so that Peter’s character could be fleshed out more. Adamson said that Peter always seemed a bit too “stiffly heroic” in the books.

Well, that’s true. Peter is, at times, “stiffly heroic” in the books, but that is how Lewis wrote the books, and it works for Peter just fine. There was no need to introduce this particular “character development” into the film, and the film suffers for it.

Also, around this time, the observant members of the audience begin to notice a slight romantic interest between Caspian and Susan. Again, like the Peter/Caspian conflict, this is nowhere in the book, it only increases as the movie goes on and it doesn’t help move the plot or Susan’s character anywhere. It also makes for some cheesy moments in the film. At one point, when Caspian offers Susan’s horn back to her, she flirtatiously says something along the lines of “No, you might need to call me again.” As she and Lucy ride off on their mission, Lucy incredulously repeats Susan’s line as if to say “really?” That is precisely the question I was asking myself as I watched these scenes unfold.

The last thing that quite bothered me was the castle siege. Now, before I get the sarcastic remarks about how I’m one of those people who get incredibly peeved every time something is left out of or changed in a movie based on a book, I’m not one of those people. I understand that books and cinema are not the same thing. For example, there are definite issues of chronology and changed events (yes, even a GASP leaving out of Aslan in one scene) that occur in the beginning of the movie, but they are there because the movie needs to be a movie, not a book. I get it, and I think that these things can be handled well (like in Fellowship of the Ring) or poorly (like in The Two Towers).

The castle siege is not handled well. There is absolutely no reason for it to be there, and much of it is appears to be Adamson’s attempt to ape the Lord of the Rings movies. The only result is a generic battle scene shot in a way very similar to much of The Two Towers, a lame sight gag with a tied up cat and an excuse to insert more controversy into the relationship between Peter and Caspian. Also, was I the only person who was displeased with the centrality of a flashlight to the plot points of that scene?

Anyway, enough with the complaining.The duel between Peter and Miraz was most excellent. Even though you know who is going to win, it still manages to be intense and highly enjoyable. The treasonous second in command is done quite well, and the battle scene is pretty cool. The end isn’t as awe-inspiring or as magical as the beginning (partly because we’ve seen much of this before … in, again, Lord of the Rings), but it is still a solid finish. The way they handle the magical door back into the present is handled very nicely—it reminded me a little bit of the doors in Monsters Inc. Also, I highly enjoyed the “I left my lamp in Narnia” bit at the end—a nice nod to fans of the book.

On the whole, the movie was good. I wish I could give it an A. Portions of the film certainly deserve that. However, the superfluous castle siege, the bickering between Peter and Caspian and the shoehorned love story knock the film down to a B.

Backlog: Chipping away at Relient k

2008-05-21T19:43:00.001-05:00

On October 18, Dave Douglas announced he was leaving Relient k. I'm rather sad about this.

Although Dave wasn't one of the original members, he more or less was. He's the definitive Relient k drummer. Pittman left right after Mmhmm came out. Now, instead of him, we have John Warne (who is moderately cool) and Jonathan Schneck (who isn't).

Original members: Matt Thiessen and Matt Hoopes.Granted, this has always essentially been Thiessen's band, and it will remain that way, but I'm sad that they've almost become another entity with the same name. Something will be different now.

Oh. And one more thing that I thought of while I was writing this. After Dave leaves (end of this year), Relient k will never, ever be able to play Life After Death and Taxes at its full potential ever again. And that is a sad, sad thing.