This season of Lost is over!!!  Wednesday's will not be the same until it returns!   Tonight's two hour episode was some of the best writing ever on this show.  The introduction of a Flash-Forward was genius---however, I hope they don't overdo Flash Forwards.   There are far two many questions now.  Who was in the coffin?  What did Jack mean about he's done lying?  Who did Kate have to get back to?  Did everyone get off the island or just a few?  Why did Jack imply his father was alive (was he just drunk?)

Great Show!

Well, I saw a movie today that has indeed inspired me to create a list of absolutely ten awful movies of the past twelve months.  The movie was Next.  The premise of this film was rather interesting: a man has the gift to see two minutes into the future.  It is based on a story by Phillip K. Dick (Blade Runner).  The execution of this story into a film was abysmal.  The main problem was that almost everything that happened (even after accepting the premise) was unbelievable.  This was also one of those movies where the computer becomes the "magic bullet." What I mean about this is that whenever there is a obstacle or a problem, computers bail them out.  Also, this film presumes the FBI has total control over EVERYTHING in the United States (e.g. when the FBI needed to stop ALL telephone cellular transmission within a certain 2 mile radius within a few minutes, they were able to do it quite easily.

Finally, this movie really bugged me because the stupid director of this film staged a hostage situation based, not on reality, but on what he has apparently seen in other bad movies;  when a bad guy has a hostage and he is holding the hostage around the neck in front of him---THE BAD GUY IS SUPPOSED TO POINT THE GUN AT THE HOSTAGE---NOT AT THE POLICE!!  The buy guy is supposed to threaten to pull the trigger on the hostage if the police make any suspicious moves. With the bad guy pointing the gun at the police, any of the police could take him down.

Worst picture of the year!!!

We went to see 28 Weeks Later.  I was not a big fan of the first one, 28 Days Later ( I always felt it was two remakes in one---The Night of the Living Dead and Mars Needs Women!).  But I thought that maybe I would enjoy the sequel---Wrong!  The movie's direction was extremely pretentious---lots of shaking cameras, extreme close-ups, and over-the-top quick cutting.   The story which starts out kind of interesting (rebuilding the country) turns into a rehash of the first one.  The last half is nothing more than the characters running away from the diseased "zombies".  None of the characters were likable.  Especially the two kids in the movie.  I found them to be whiny and self-centered and stupid!   If I ever start a list of my ten most Unenjoyable movies of the last twelve months, this film would be on it.

I watched On the Waterfront tonight  I have not seen this film since I was nine and I certainly didn't understand it then.  I really had no desire to see it, even though it is Number 8 on the AFI list of best movies of all time.  The movie starts  exciting with the waterfront mob pushing someone off a building because he's about to expose the dark underpinnings of the teamsters union.  Then the picture slows down a bit with lots of exposition and story building.  However, everything pays off during the last 45 minutes especially after the famous "I coulda been a contender" taxi scene.  Elia Kazan (the director) did a superb job.  Marlon Brando was at his peak (later in his career he would begin to OVER-act).   Leonard Bernstein did the music. This is indeed a great classic film.

We went to see Spiderman 3 today.  What a waste of time (2 hours and 20 minutes long!) and money!.  There was no real plot to the movie.  Just a bunch of scenes of him fighting special effects creatures that was tied together with some kind of annoying boy loses girl story.  Kirsten Dunst is extremely annoying as the whiny, self-centered girlfriend of Spiderman---he deserves far better.  It still amazing how film-makers have the ability to create masterful special effects but somehow they still lack the ability to make them seem really real!  As the Sandman walked thru the streets of New York, one cannot lose the feeling that its only a special effect.  Consequently, the movie never really comes alive.

Finally, the director dropped the ball at editing this movie.  He probably loved every foot of film he shot and thought it to good too lose from the final cut.  Wrong!  Someone should have stood behind him in the editing room (I guess Sam Raimi is too big of a director for that) and said "Sam...there's about 60 minutes of scenes that you can cut out because they are NOT NECCESSARY! 

It's double feature film noir night at the Egyptian Theater in Hollywood.  The first film was 1956's The Wrong Man, a very non-typical Alfred Hitchcock film. The movie is based on a true story about a man wrongly accused of a crime.  It follows him through being arrested, thrown in jail, finding a lawyer, being tried, and the effect on his family. There was no Hitchcock suspense, red herrings, or surprise plot twists.  This film is supposed to be one of Hitchcock's overlooked films and I can see why---It doesn't feel like one.

The second film was 1949's Shockproof, a very typical film noir where a good parole officer goes bad because he falls in love with a beautiful parolee (who was convicted of murdering someone).  She realizes that he's in love with her so she uses this to get what she wants---which is her old boy friend.  Things really go south for the parole officer and there seems to be no way out!

One note about both these films (and 1940's and 1950's films in general)---when they end---THEY END!  Unlike today's films that go on and on after the end of the story takes place, both of these films ended within 60 seconds of the final resolution---It was wonderful!

This afternoon, I went back to see Grindhouse with Emma.  The movie is great the second time too.  This time around I noticed several things I missed the first time such as the carryover of some characters from Planet Terror to Deathproof.  I also timed the lunchroom scene in Deathproof---8 minutes without a cut!

In the evening, Val and I went to the Egyptian Theater for the start of the film noir festival that they have every year. The first film was Act of Violence starring Van Heflin and Robert Ryan.  It was an excellent film about a mysterious man who is out to kill an apparently good and upstanding family man.  The story is an astounding journey that takes one from the serenity of suburban life to the underbelly of downtown Los Angeles---very exciting! 

We started to watch the second feature on the film noir bill which was Force of Evil starring John Agar.  We were both very tired (the film started at 10:15 PM) and we found the film a little confusing and not that engrossing.  The picture had to do something with the numbers racket which I didn't quite understand (One doesn't hear too much about the numbers racket anymore).  I felt awful leaving a film that many people highly respect.

Everyone should see Grindhouse, the "double feature" put together by Robert Rodriguez and Quentin Tarantino.  The first half of this double feature is "Planet Terror", a take-off on all those zombie "back from the dead" features.  Rodriguez made a truly enjoyable bad movie---full of action, scares, and visual delights.  However, the second feature "Death Proof" by Tarantino (and I am not particularly a fan of his) is almost a masterpiece of visceral film-making.  The dialogue is realistic and interesting, and the action is unrelenting at times.  The great car chase in the film is non-CGI which I think made it all the more exciting.  Because it is non-CGI one KNOWS it is REAL!   And keep an eye out for the scene in the restaurant where the four girls are talking about things.  IT IS ALL DONE IN ONE TAKE!----and it is a long scene.  This is a perfect example of great "ease-dropping" film making.  When the camera is just an observer the audience member gets drawn into the film and forgets that he is "watching" a film.  This is what creates the "magic of movies"---the ability of a film to lift a viewer out of his life and into the imaginary world that is on the screen.  Very few films do this today.

Later that day I watched a 1940 Academy nominated film, The Long Voyage Home.   The film is based on three of Eugene O'Neals one act plays.  It is about the lives and ordeal or merchant marines during World War Two while they are at sea.  John Wayne is one of the stars and he plays a Swede (with an accent also!).  The movie starts out real slow and I almost gave up on it.  Thank goodness I didn't.  About 25 minutes into the film, the story picks up and then it kept my interest until the end.  The three main events in this film are 1) the marines suspect one of their friends is a spy for the Germans, 2) a storm at sea, and 3) at port in England where one of them gets Shanghaied.  Although the film moves at a slow pace, I can see why it was one of the most respected pictures that year.

This afternoon we saw Blades of Glory, Will Farrell's new movie.   The movie is very funny.  John Heder was the co-star and he proved with this film that he is a good comedic actor.  I had always wondered if Napoleon Dynamite was a fluke for him.  Well, this movie proves that he can help carry a major Hollywood film.  Although not quite as funny as Talledega Nights, Farrell's last film, it was still quite hilarious and a good way to spend an Saturday afternoon.

Classic of classics, Never Give a Sucker an Even Break, is a delicious W.C. Fields film.  That this film got made is a miracle.  The movie is quite surreal in its story.  Fields plays himself and is trying to get his script made into a movie.  As he explains the story to the studio boss, the picture comes alive for us.  The story is terrible and completely insane.  The studio boss yells at him and lets him know how stupid it is.  However, Fields keeps going and pitching his script and we see it continually come alive on the screen.  If there is only one Fields film you see in your life---this is it!

Lost is not getting much better.  The show has gone into lulls before but I am getting worried this time.  This whole "discovering a VW bus" on the island is bothersome.  It is extremely good writing or very lazy writing---we will only find out later if and when this episode's issues are dealt with.  The questions that this episode raised are 1) why was the key from the car around Roger's arm---would it not be in the ignition? 2} why was the Roger's arm mummified while the rabbit's foot looked brand new?  3) gas was still in the car and the tires still inflated? 4) the car looked like it was just on its side and not crashed---what killed the driver?

I hope these questions will be dealt with!

I was surprised how much I enjoyed The Number 23.  It has been getting HORRIBLE reviews (check it out at rottentomatoes.com).  However, it sounded like it had an interesting premise (a man obsessed with the number 23) so I took a chance on it.  Even though it had a few flaws (it was partially narrated-although very little) and I thought Jim Carrey overacted the part a bit, I found the movie quite engrossing and it kept my interest.  I do not understand why the critics hated it so much.  I recommend the movie as an interesting diversion and a neat way to enjoy a big box of popcorn.

Last year I did not watch the Academy Awards---I hated the actors and movies that were nominated (I didn't think they were Oscar worthy) and did not like the host Jon Stewart.  However, this years awards seemed to promise more---interesting and Oscar worthy acting races and what I thought was going to be a terrific host---Ellen Degeneres.  Was I wrong on the last count!!!   Ellen was awful!!!  I like her humor but it was an ill-fit for the giant Oscar show.  I though most of her jokes were far too mild and (yes, I know she's a lesbian) her outfits were ill-fitting and too masculine (Ellen, couldn't you wear a dress at least once?)  The rest of the show fell flat too.  The film clip montages were not fun and some of the set pieces (like the "costumes on display" bit seemed pretentious.  And what it with the shadow box players---did they not become annoying after awhile?  The best part of the show---Jerry Seinfeld.  He should host the show next year. 

Can Ugly Betty get any better?  This is absolutely the best written show and best produced show on TV.  Each week the characters and story get more interesting.  So far, as what seems to happen to all shows (see Desperate Housewives), is not happening here---the characters are all remaining strong to their attributes and are not changing each week in order to move some new story line along.

Thursday is the best night for TV---Ugly Betty on ABC at 8:00.  Meanwhile on NBC there is My Name is Earl (not as good as it should be), the hilarious The Office, lovable Scrubs, and the screwball 30 Rock.

Could Life on Thursdays be any better?

The first movie of the new year was an old one, Mutiny on the Bounty, the classic film starring Clark Gable and Charles Laughton.  At two hours and 12 minutes the film was a tightly edited and never boring film (Unlike the three hour 1962 remake).  Laughton's performance of Captain Bligh was perfect--- there never was a meaner character than Bligh and Laughton did him perfectly.  A handsome (sans mustache) Clark Gable played the good Officer Christian.  Old movies like this one are great because they get right into the story---the first ten minutes lays everything on the line and then the movie take off.  One of the things that made this movie was the fact they did not use miniatures for the sailing scenes---a real ship was used and everything seemed real. They also got b-roll of Tahiti.  (Isn't it amazing that today with such wonderful digital special effects techniques, that when they use them the effects still don't seem real!)

The second film today was Children of Men which is about the world in the not too distant future when women, for some unknown reason, can no longer have babies.  I find myself both liking the film and disliking it at the same time.  First the likes:  1)The premise is quite intriguing. Since no more people are being born, society is slowing disappearing and every human idea along with it. 2) The cinematography is amazing.  The director allowed us to SEE things!  He had two-shots of people talking! (many directors today love to have a close-up of each face as they converse).  He had extremely LONG takes, of which one was nine minutes long, without any editing---this is amazing film direction, harking back to the old days of direction where things happen in the scene and editing was not needed.  Now the dislikes:  1) the shaky hand-held camera.  Come on---it's such a cliche to use a shaky hand-held camera (ART!) 2) The bankruptcy of the story.  Although the premise is amazing, it was only explored a little. After the premise had been set up, all we get is a chase film---for 75% of the film, the hero is trying to get away from the bad guys---that's it!!!!!!!!!!!