Get LOST - The finale pre and post viewing event

I almost cannot believe it. 6 years of our lives have passed and our Lost adventure is almost over. It's been a long, hard, strenuous but ultimately enjoyable experience and one that i am very excited to see how it ends. However, did you notice one word that i didn't use to describe my lost experience? That was fulfilling.

As much as Lost has captivated and excited me, it has disappointed in equal measures. I distinctly remember thinking during Season 2, that if it didn't stop putting out filler episodes that go no where i would stop watching. Luckily the week after was the return of Michael where he shot not only Libby and Ana Lucia, but also himself. BANG! I was back.

Each season seemed to follow this trend of a huge opening followed by several slower (some would argue filler) episodes then a race towards an exciting finale. I had hoped that the final season would have changed this format slightly and packed every single episode with great reveals or exciting plot twists. I expected each flash to relate to on island actions or to tell us more about each character. Instead, we got sequences of Sayid fixing vases, or Jack watching his son playing the piano. With the power of hindsight, how has that helped the show? I wanted more episodes akin to Ben or Locke's flashes, where each scene was a reference to seasons past and had some kind of new reveal or corralation to another character.

In typical Lost fashion, i felt the pacing of the final season was off. There was too much of a void in the middle, but then a sprint towards the end and in doing getting some quick reveals to some extremely important questions. We found out what they whispers were in passing. We know why the island is so special - It is life itself and has to be protected. Wow. Great. Though i would have like more than a few passing lines in the last episode (which, in my opinion, was diabolical!) and explored these further.

We have two episodes left and i can't for the life of me see where they are going with it. I initially thought that the flash sideways were the creation of Fake Locke. I thought that they were his impressions of what he imagined the Losties' perfect lives to be. I thought as the season continued, both timelines would clash, forcing them to choose which timeline they want to stay in. But seeing as Locke definitely wants them dead and no such offer has been made, i have no idea how it will end. If anyone has any thoughts on this, please put them up. We could possibly have a sweep stake where each person makes five or so predictions about how Lost will end and the person who gets the most right wins the stash!

I could go on for hours about what i have like/disliked about the final season (or the show in general for that matter) but this is just the start and i'll open the forum up to the rest of you. No matter what you might think, this is a huge event in television and i wish i could make it to Vics for the showing, but internet chatter will have to suffice. There might only be two episodes left, but the finale will only be the beginning. For every person that is happy with the finale, another will be outraged. I just hope i'm not one of them!

**UPDATED**

Now we are only 24 hours away from finishing our last ever Lost episode. Vicky has arranged what looks like will be an excellent event. Let me know not only your thoughts on the episode, but on the night itself. Hopefully someone did decide to dress up as Hurley!

Movie Review - Kick-Ass

Violence - Check! Sex - Check! Drugs - Check! Foul Language - Check! Burning Buildings and crazy costumes - Check! And this was just my bus journey through East London to the cinema. I was off to see the new Superhero film, Kick-Ass from Producer-cum-Director-cum-moghul-cum-Supermodel's husband-cum-lucky so and so, Matthew Vaughn.

The advertisement campaign for Kick-Ass has been huge. You couldn't walk ten feet without seeing a poster with the green, wet suited avenger staring at you. And after after watching several (extremely violent) trailers, I was excited to catch an early showing of the film and put up an early review. Those plans were almost scuppered however, as I didn't put my serious-film-reviewer-hat on as i accidentally got very, very drunk!

A friend and I had pre-booked tickets to see the film at the Screen on the Green in North London. A lovely little cinema with EXTREMELY comfortable sofas with arm and footrests (well, that is the least you would expect for £12.50 a ticket!) and a little table to place your drinks as there is a fully licensed bar with table service. I had no idea about this and if I did I probably wouldn't have had the 5 pints with dinner as we went through a bottle of red by the time the trailers were over. Let's hope this doesn't hinder my review! From what I remember...

Kick-Ass is the story of Dave Lizewski, an exceptionally normal teenager whose only special power is being invisible to women. Tired of being a nobody and getting pushed around, he decides to create a costume to become a Superhero and fight crime. His alter ego, Kick Ass, fast becomes an internet sensation and pretty soon, other costumed heroes such as Red Mist (Christopher Mintz-Plasse), Big Daddy (Nicolas Cage) and Hit Girl (Chloe Moretz) come forward to assist Kick-Ass. But when mafia boss Frank D'Amico (Mark Strong) decides to send a message that being a superhero can be bad for your health, our heroes are faced with their biggest challenge yet.

Kick-Ass is the total antithesis of most superheroes movies that has come before it. It's an R-Rated Spider-Man if you will. Dave Lizewski is basically Peter Parker in disguise. He has the same geeky demeanor and is ignored by women. He lives in the same colourful, leafy suburbs of New York and is beset by family tragedy. But where as a film like Spider-Man only alludes to issues of growing up and being a teenager, Kick-Ass slaps you across the face with them with a nunchuck.


Take an early scene in the first Spider-man film for example, where Peter Parker is exploring a new part of himself, shooting that sticky, creamy substance from his wrist in his bedroom. Aunt May is dismayed by the clamour and wonders what is going on behind closed doors in his room. She knows what he is really doing. We all know what he is doing. In Kick-Ass, no subtlety is needed. Dave is a typical teenager and is jerking off to his school teacher before the opening credits are over. When he becomes a superhero, we see him use his superpowers for good by having sex with his new girlfriend in the ally. The best quote from this film that sums up where Kick-Ass sits in the realm of Superhero films is this: "With great power, comes NO responsibility!".

All the characters are foul mouthed and vicious. The only other film i can think of that was similar was the Watchmen, but that was so dark and brooding, more in tone with The Dark Knight. Kick-Ass still looks and feels like a comic book, just with real characters. For example, before the film even begins we see a guy fall to his death trying to be a superhero. But he was not a hero, just mentally insane. It was refreshing to see a film that was fantastical yet set in the real world at the same time.

Aaron Johnson is good as Kick-Ass, as are the rest of the supporting cast, but the real star of the show for me is Chloe Moretz as Hit Girl. She swears like a sailor and and is more clinical with her gun than Dirty Harry. It's unbelievable seeing how sweet she can be in one scene, yet so convincing shooting up a whole gang in the next. Nicolas Cage is surprisingly good as Big Daddy and Red Mist still has a bit of the 'McLovin's about him but is still has some funny lines.


The directing was also quite impressive and Matthew Vaughn has clearly done his homework into the superhero genre. There are also some original moments to the film and the action sequences are exciting and exhilarating. It was good to see some great camera and grip work in the film moving Matthew Vaughn forward visually and stylistically. One scene in the lumber yard is particularly great to look at without compromising the story.

If I had any gripes with the film, it would be that it looked so similar to some other superhero films in tone, and was almost a shot for shot copy of Spider-Man in certain areas. I would guess the film-makers would say that this is the point as it was supposed to be similar yet drastically different at the same time. The film still worked however, and if this was my only complaint I don't think they have anything to worry about.

Kick-Ass is the kind of superhero film that you have always wanted to see. Kick-Ass could be anyone of us as despite being set in a fantasy world of costume avengers, Kick-Ass has no superpowers, no money and no special gadgets. Just a will and a desire to make a difference. I doubt people will try to copy Kick-Ass and try and become a superhero in their own right, but it has certainly given me a few ideas of my own. Not from a need or desire to do good and fight crime, but i might need a costume and some nunchucks just to make it back home through the mean streets of hackney! Wish me luck...

Movie Review - Crazy Heart

Crazy Heart was one of those films I never really had any strong desire to see. But after Jeff Bridges won the Oscar for best actor, it suddenly became a film I felt I had to see, rather than one I wanted to. I mean, come on. . . it's the dude! Gotta show some support.

Crazy Heart tells the story of washed up country and western singer Bad Blake Nelson, who has seen his fame diminish and has now resorted to playing tiny bars and bowling alleys. He is overweight, alcoholic and needs to turn his life around. This opportunity comes when a meeting with a female reporter (Maggie Gyllenhaal) and an offer from his protégé Tommy Sweet, (Colin Farrell) he is faced with a choice to turn his life around or stay and follow his same destructive path.

I have to admit, I quite enjoyed Crazy Heart. It's a nice, touching story and gives us a deep insight into the life of a fading musician and how they can struggle with life after the fame and money have gone.

As you might expect, Jeff Bridges was brilliant as Bad Blake Nelson. He looked the part, and you could really feel Bad Blake's pain as he tried to battle his inner demons and find something to give his life meaning again. Gyllenhaal was good as the single mother but nothing really stood out as a brilliant performance. Certainly not in the same league as some of her fellow nominees, but I thought their dynamic worked really well and she made the mother a really believable character in her own right, rather than turning into some kind of caricature only here to move the story along.

And seeing as the last country and western song I bought was "Achy Breaky Heart" by Billy Ray Cyrus, I wasn't sure how I was going to respond to the music, but I thought it was great. A few of the songs are extremely catchy, annoyingly so. But they are used a great device to provide us with back-story for Bad Blake. Where as in Ray or Walk the Line or Other funny film where they use flash back. Bad Blake doesn't like talking about his life so his songs do it for him.

This brings me onto one of the main problems I had with the film. Mirroring the current state of Bad Blake's life, not a lot really happens. We see him tour, drink, fuck, repeat. I suppose we are supposed to be more concerned with the relationships between the characters and watch and as Bad tries to make something of his life.

Another problem i had was that I didn't find the story original in any way. There are several movies where our hero has had a fall from grace and battles with his demons. The most recent I can think of is The Wrestler. It was practically the same story and in light of Jeff Bridges and Jamie Foxx's Oscar wins, I thought Mickey Rouke was quite hard done by as he was fantastic.

While i really enjoyed Crazy Heart, it didn't leave me with anything the way The Wrestler or Walk the Line did, and i don't feel like I’ll think about it again apart from the songs I can't get out of my head. I’m sure I have missed something here as a lot of professional reviewers have said that Crazy Heart is great. If you think my review of Crazy Heart was unjustified and not very good, just don’t tell my heart. My achey breaky heart. I just don’t think it understand…

Movie Review - The Crazies

During the awards season, one is generally spoiled for choice with quality films at the cinema. I had the choice this particular Sunday of Avatar, Alice in Wonderland, Invictus or Precious. So what did I choose to see? The Crazies directed by Breck Eisner.

I had been excited to see this film since I first saw the trailer, as I actually had no idea what the film was about. It looked like a zombie film but it didn’t appear to have any zombies. It was a thriller but with a creepy edge. It looked like it could have been the film that M. Night Shayamalan’s The Happening should have been.

The film takes place in the Midwestern town of Ogden. A tiny farming community with only 1,200 people where everyone knows everyone and life is good. That is until a few of the towns folk start displaying strange symptoms and start acting a little….well, crazy.

After a military plane is found in the local river, the government is sent in to round everybody up and lock down the town to see who is infected. When the town’s sheriff’s wife is mistakenly diagnosed as a “crazy”, he risks his life to rescue her and to escape to the next big town. This is harder than it seems because not only do they have to evade the crazies, they also have to avoid the army who are taking no prisoners.


I tend to find the main problem with films of this kind is that they take too long to establish characters and plot, and the scare set-pieces are too few and far between. Not so with The Crazies. Events get going in the first five minutes and never lets up. The Crazies is simply one of the best horror films I have seen for a while.

I know this may sound cheesy, but I really was on the edge of my seat the whole time. Like any good horror film, the scares come thick and fast and are really well. One particular scene in a morgue was particularly creepy and will make you think twice before you ever pull the sheets off of somebody again. The camera work is shaky and in your face, but in this instance it fits perfectly as it contrasts the scares brilliantly with the vast landscapes of Iowa during the few quieter moments.



It’s main focus is just to scare the pants off you. There is no needless exposition explaining why people are the way they are. There is no cheese filled dialogue getting in the way of the action. It is a very real story with real character motivations. There are no scenes breaking into labs or discussing cures. There are no plots to take down the government, the characters main focus is simply to survive.

The actors all do there jobs considerably well. Timothy Olyphant does a good job as the sheriff and you and was also impressed with his wife, played by Radha Mitchell, who I usually have no time for. Joe Anderson who plays the Sheriff’s Deputy is also very impressive, especially when you realize that he is English, and you can put this mostly down to the script as we can all relate with our primal survival instincts.

The Crazies is not a perfect film by any strectch of the imagination, and sure there are some things wrong with it. Believe it or not, but I thought there were too many scares. After 2/3 of the film, it became a bit predictable as you knew every time they sat down or relaxed a crazy was going to attack. I’m sure some people won’t be too pleased by the explanation to the virus, or the lack of back-story to our characters, but I believe some of these “weaknesses” are the films strengths.

The Crazies doesn’t break the mould in any way, but mainly solidifies and builds on it. And while it might not be the perfect film and does contain a few flaws, what it does do, it does very well. And that is play to its strengths by keeping you on the edge of your seat until it makes you jump out of it. If you are getting bored of the recent race for Oscar gold or are getting sick of the latest 3D blockbuster, The Crazies is the perfect antidote.

Movie Review - Alice In Wonderland

I recently saw an internet viral film spoofing the works of Tim Burton. In it, “Burton” tells how the studio wants to make a new movie. His employees sit up with excitement and ask will it be something original? “No” Burton retorts. “We’re going to take a creepy old story and make it even creepier…get me Johnny Depp and my wife on the phone!”. “I can’t not do that”, sighs a disgruntled employee.

Rather than being revered and heralded as one of the all time greats, it seems that in recent years Tim Burton has become more of a laughing stock and his visions have fallen below par from his usual high standards. If there was ever a film that Burton was destined to make, it was Alice in Wonderland. With it's alienated main character and surreal world, it seemed like Tim Burton would rise to the top of his game once again.

The film follows Alice 13 years on from her last adventure. And while she has some recollection of those events, she merely dismisses them as dreams and her own sense of fun.

While she is faced with the prospect of marriage, Alice is summoned back to Wonderland as all her old acquaintances such as The Hatter (Johnny Depp) the Tweedles (Matt Lucas) Mouse (Barbara Windsor) and the White Queen (Anne Hathaway) need help defeating the evil Red Queen, played by the brilliant Helena Bonham Carter.

As you would expect, the world of wonderland is vibrantly alive with the amazing visions of Tim Burton. The sets are dark and brooding and the character design is fantastic. The Red Queen is particularly good with her bulbus head and over the top mannerisms.

Some of the animation is excellent too. I thought the motion capture and animation of their mouths was like nothing I had seen before. The way they spoke was so lifelike, it was unreal.

While all this was initially a joy to look at, unfortunately these were the only things to get me excited in a 2-hour-plus film. The rest of it just lacked that certain spark.

Take Johnny Depp's Mad Hatter for example. Whereas most of the characters had some kind of physical manipulation, he was “normal” which simply gave him the appearance of a disheveled circus clown. And his accent ranged from John Leguizamo’s Toulouse-Lautrec in Moulin Rouge and an angry version of his J.M Barrie in Finding Neverland. All things that we have seen and heard him do before. And there in lies the films biggest problem. It feels like we've simply seen…it…all…before.

Johnny Depp is wacky, the trees curl like fingers, the colours are vivid and the music is orchestral, but i never felt fully engaged enough to care. Mia Wasikowska’s Alice is not a particularly likeable character and plays her with no emotion or feeling whatsoever. Maybe she focused so hard on her English accent, she forgot about portraying her emotions. However, like I stated earlier, Bonham-Carter’s Red Queen is excellent and I really enjoyed Hathaway’s White Queen and some of the other supporting cast.

Alice in Wonderland is a dazzling vision from one of the most innovative directors working today. At times it dazzles and wonders, while at others it leaves you feeling deflated, bored and like you're watching a repeat of some of his previous works. You keep waiting for something to invigorate the experience or to be lost in the next big set piece. Before you go to see Wonderland, maybe it is wise to keep in mind that the film is distributed by Disney and is rated PG. So I doubt it will be as dark and as brooding as some Tim Burton fans had hoped. For some, this film might not be Tim Burton enough to satisfy the die-hard fans, but for some relatively unfamiliar with him and the story of Alice, it might be a welcome introduction.

Movie Review - Micmacs

The following was first over on the recently formed film club The Electric Fleapit's website (www.electictricfleapit.wordpress.com), hence the elaborate talk film club and deviation from a full on review. Have a look if you are interested...


Bonjour mes ami and welcome to the first film review from the Electric Fleapit. After great work over the last few weeks by our dear leader, Vicky Fabri, the film club has finally come together. Our choices were put up on the Electric Fleapit website and gradually we all made our voices heard and voted for what our first film viewing would be. With it being Oscar season, there were several quality options for us to choose.

Unfortunately, being the loser that I am, I had seen most of them so it narrowed my choices considerably. However, I hadn’t seen A Single Man and I really wanted to see if the hype surrounding Colin Firth was justified and see what Tom Ford had to offer. A Single Man was leading the vote for a good while, only to be usurped at the last minute by Jean-Pierre Jeunet’s Micmacs. I was a little bit upset about this, as I had heard it wasn’t his best effort. Not to mention the fact that I am incredibly selfish. Much to my dismay, I believe in the democratic system we live in so went along for the jaunt. Even so, the thought of starting up my own film dictatorship did cross my mind. As did the thought of taking inspiration from my own personal favourite dictator, by kidnapping a film director to make a movie for me. Good old Kim Jong Il you commie fool!

Alas, Micmacs it was. 8.30 at the Barbican centre and there was quite a turnout. 14 in fact, so well done all. And in typical English fashion, we were quickly up the bar ordering Malteasers and booze faster than you could say ‘Micmacs à tire-larigot’. With snacks, booze and tickets in hand, we made our way into the theatre.

Now I am all for supporting independent cinemas and film, but I have to admit that I am a sucker for a multiplex. The perfectly positioned seats, the large screens, the surround sound and what not. Heaven. But don’t blame me for this, blame the society we live in, but as I walked into the cinema it instantly struck me as having the appearance of a university lecture hall. I thought the screen was too far away and there were no cup holders. NO FREAKING CUP HOLDERS, I TELL YOU! But once I sat down in those comfy seats and only had to sit through a few minutes of commercials, I was more than happy to be in an independent “fleapit” to enjoy Micmacs.

Prior to coming tonight, I did some research and was intrigued to see the film as it only came about after Jean-Pierre Jeunet abandoned his adaptation of Yann Martel’s Life of Pi due to budgetary conflicts. Jeunet said he needed $85,000,000 to tell the story of a boy in a boat with a tiger. The studio said “non”. Jeunet said “Au revior” and wrote Micmacs instead. Pretty impressive seeing as it has taken me almost 3 weeks to finish two recaps of Lost.

Now first things first, and the answer to the question which we almost went to war over is “non”. Audrey Tautou was NOT in this film! Despite the Tautou argument, the general consenus and scores of the group varied from 6 out of 10 up to 8.5 out of 10. There was a cheeky 7.7 out of 10 from Fabbri thrown in for good measure to give an average score of 7 out of 10. Upon reflection, I feel my own mark of 6.5 out of 10 was unfair, as I thought Micmacs was a delightful little film and it’s occasional brilliance far outweighed whatever initial misgivings I might have had.

For those of you that didn’t see the film, the premise revolves around Bazil who is a victim of two arms companies. One produced a landmine that killed his father, which subsequently sent his mother mad, and the other produced a bullet that has become lodged in his brain 30 years later and could kill him at any moment. This in turn forces him on the streets where he is subsequently “adopted” by a family of weird and wonderful characters who want to help him get his revenge in a series of humorous capers.

Micmacs is at times amazingly inventive and visually quite stunning. Jean-Paul Jeunet has to be one of the most artistically creative directors working today. Even though they may appear simple to construct with minimal camera set-ups, there is nothing simple about the content of his scenes. Whether it be the use of animation to show Bazil’s “random question” technique to stop himself from passing out. Or putting real life thought bubbles into people’s heads, his use of editing and his well thought out compositions make him a standout director, in my opinion.

The acting is also particularly good from the whole cast. Be it a minor comedic cameo from an airport security guard or our hero, Bazil, played by Dany Boon. Boon’s performance is extravagant and has a youthful charm. I couldn’t stop likening his performance to that from the silent movies of old and Charlie Chaplin in particular. However, it is the supporting cast that really steal the show, with the odd-ball characters such as the uptight human cannonball or the contortionist who hides herself in fridges whenever she is scared. My personal favourite is the African poet who has a flair with words in the worst situations. He steals the scene in every one he is in. Not forgetting the man who invents all kind of weird and wonderful contraptions out of junk. One in particular had me laughing out loud, or “LOL’ing” if there are any kids reading. Some of the best characters, however, are the sets. The junkyard where the Micmacs live is so grandiose and contains so many nick-nacks, that you could probably look at it for hours and still find something new.

The initial problems I had with the film were down to pacing and my own expectations. After the first 15-minutes I thought I was going to be watching one of the best films I had seen this year. I could feel all the old magic of Amélie returning. But for all the set pieces and quirky-ness the film inspires, it never really reaches the heights that you would come to expect if you have seen any of Jeunet’s previous work. It just feels flat in places and like it never really gets into gear until the finale. But like I said earlier, despite what I see as weaknesses in the film were more than made up by many of the films moments of ingenuity. And after recent viewings of Precious and Brothers, it was quite refreshing to just see a nice uplifting, genuinely positive film in which the little guys win.

So my fellow fleapitters, I open the forum up to you. Do you agree with anything I have said? Disagree? What were your thoughts on the film? I will leave you with several questions to ponder…

* Did you think the film was a case of style over substance or are his OTT techniques justified by the story?

* Did it have anything serious to say about the buying and selling of arms?

* In what ways was the film like or unlike any of Jean-Pierre Jeunet’s previous films?

* I said that Jeunet is one of the most visionary directors working today, can you think of anyone else that is equal or surpasses him?

* Do you still think that it was Audrey Tautou on the video store? Come on! Really?
Right, until next time, I will bid you adieu. The next Fleapit evening is on March 13^th in Hackney and the theme is ‘Time Travel’. Go to the voting section and vote for your choice of film. So far Dreamcatchers is leading the way and my preferred options of Primer and Donnie Darko and languishing far behind.

Hmmm, I wonder if I still have Kim Jong Il’s number….

Taken from Darkhorizons.com

Deadline Hollywood reports that Paramount Pictures and Ben Stiller are re-teaming for a sequel to the 2001 cult comedy smash "Zoolander".

Actor-turned-writer Justin Theroux, who penned "Tropic Thunder" and "Iron Man 2", will co-write the script with Stiller and potentially direct the follow-up.

The hope is Owen Wilson will return but nothing is set, though Jonah Hill ("Superbad," "Get Him to the Greek") is apparently in negotiations to play the villain.

Zoolander part 2? Nice. All together now, let's see your best Magnums...

Here is the second trailer for the remake of "A Nightmare on Elm Street". I have to say, I quite like it. I don't particularly like the look of the kids, they're just a little too glossy for my liking, but as for everything else, I think it looks pretty promising. Freddy looks great, sounds great and doesn't appear to be copying Robert Englund and could quite well make this his own. I also love how all the elements from previous films are there, especially in the dinner with the neon green and red lights. You know Freddy's-a-coming!

Any thoughts?

More posters and a trailer for the Nightmare on Elm Street remake

Here is the poster for the remake of A Nightmare on Elm Street. It stars Jackie Earle Haley (Rorschach from Watchmen) as the new Freddie Kruger, and while it takes elements from the original, it appears to add something new to the Freddy Kruger mythology. Have a look at the trailer also. Any thoughts?

Movie Review - The Wolfman

The Wolfman is a film I have been interested in seeing for a long time, but not for entirely positive reasons. The Wolfman is a remake of George Waggner’s 1941 original The Wolf Man, and by all accounts was due to be released in cinemas in 2007. Then in February 2009. Then in November 2009. Finally being released this month. The scheduling conflicts were not the only problems for The Wolfman. The films original director, Mark Romanek, left only 4 weeks before the start of principal photography to be replaced by Joe Johnston. Johnston’s last film was 7 years ago. Add to this the need to film extensive reshoots due to gaping holes in the plot, all did not look good for The Wolfman.

I was lucky enough to see some of the re-shoots as we were shooting some scenes for Harry Potter at Pinewood at the same time, and I thought the sets looked great. Needless to say, for all these reasons I was intrigued to see it and decided to be positive about the film. But with so many changes and distractions, could the film live up to it’s hype actually be any good? Well, for me, the answer is yes and no.

The film is a loose remake of the 1941, in which traveling actor Lawrence Talbot, Benicio Del Toro, returns to his family home after receiving word about his brother’s death. Mystery surrounds the murder, with talk of a bear or some kind of beast being the main suspect. Talbot decides to investigate himself, but is also attacked by the beast and subsequently transforms into a lycanthropic monster at the sight of a full moon, devouring local villagers. Rather than embrace his curse, he hates what he has becomes and once caught and taken to a London mental institution, he tries to figure out where the curse came from, and how he can change it. Once back in the countryside, he confronts his father played by Anthony Hopkins, and with the help of Gwen Conliffe played by Emily Blunt, he tries to confront his curse head on and take back his humanity.

Despite what you might have heard, The Wolfman is not a terrible movie. It was refreshing to see a horror film that has decided to take it roots from the classic horror films of old. The look and feel of the film is great. Being set in a quaint little village with huge meandering trees, grand old houses and weary villagers, one cannot help but think of films such as The Wolfman, Dracula and Frankenstein. Here, the sets and locations act as characters themselves. The last film I can think of that did this so well was Tim Burton’s Sleepy Hollow.



The Special Effects in particular are another plus of the film. Everyone will always compare movie werewolf transformations to John Landis’ An American Warewolf in London (and rightly so) but Rick Baker’s wolf man effects have certainly pushed the genre forward. The transformation scenes certainly display the pain and agony that it must feel to take part in such a change. You can literally hear the bones cracking and see Benicio Del Toro’s body twist and contorts as his body structure changes. We see his human teeth pushed out of his mouth to be replaced by the teeth of the beast. You can really feel and believe the pain he is going through as he succumbs to the demon within. Director Joe Johnston provides an interesting touch by giving The Wolfman the options of running on two legs like a man, or acting like the beast it is by running like the wind on all fours. Although the transformations aren’t on screen long enough, nor if truth be told is the wolf, you cannot wait for the next full moon to see the beast again. And here in lies the films main problem.


Everything in between the wolfman transforming, prowling or killing, The Wolfman is just….well, just a little bit boring. It’s a werewolf film, so it is not like there is going to be any confusion or ambiguity in what is going to happen in the story, but everything else just feels rushed and slightly incoherent.

I can’t believe I am going to say this, but I believe the guiltiest party in this is Sir Anthony Hopkins. Who knows what direction he was given, but he is so lethargic in his performance that it feels like he is either supposed to be drunk or tired. He just meanders his way through his scenes like he doesn’t really want to be there. Like I said, maybe this was the directors intention to contrast his mannerisms from his human form to his lycan form, but I really doubt this was the case. The rest of the cast do as well as they can with the below par script. Benicio Del Toro is fully believable as The Wolfman as he has that crazy look in his eye before he even gets bitten. Emily blunt is great as the beautiful damsel but fails miserably to find any real connection with Del Toro, and Hugo Weaving does his best impression of Dick Van Dyke with an over the top cockney accent, as the suave Inspector Abberline. To be fair to him, he does have a cracking mustache.

If you take into consideration the sheer number of problems The Wolfman overcame just to make it to the screen, it has to be seen as a success. While there are many plusses to come out of the film, such as the wolfman effects, it ultimately feels like a mishmash of incoherent scenes that are missing that little something extra. And like the film itself, it ultimately feels like it could have done with just a little more bite. And yes, that was supposed to be a joke. I apologise in advance.

Martin Scorsese and Robert De Niro to reunite?

Tis' a very good day my friends, a very good day indeed. The word on the street from the Berlin Film Festival, is that Robert De Niro and Martin Scorsese are planning to reunite for a 10th time, returning to the world of the mafia. A world in which they work so well.
Speaking at the premiere of his Lastest film, Shutter Island, in which he is working with Leonardo DiCaprio for the 4th time, Scorsese said:


"Bob De Niro (and I) are talking about something that has to do with that world, there's no doubt about that. We're working on something like that, but it's from the vantage point of older men looking back, none of this running around stuff." - Reuters. The last film the pair collaborated on was 1995's Casino.

For some reason, the rumour mill has been suggesting that the next time Scorsese and
De Niro team up, will be to ressurect one of their classic creations in Travis Bickle for a Taxi Driver sequel - though I can't seem to find any proof of this anywhere. After searching imdb pro, it seems like the most possible scenerio at the moment would be a film called I Heard You Paint Houses to be released in 2011. Again, according to the imdb, the story is as follows:

"[Based on the book by Steve Zaillian] A mob hit man recalls his possible involvement with the slaying of Jimmy Hoffa."



Considering what Scorsese has said, this sounds likely to be the most plausible option. I can't imagine why he would want to revisit some of his best work. Like the old saying goes "If it isn't broken, don't fix it". I can understand if Robert De Niro wanted to go back, however. But he should leave his greatest roles well alone. If it is to be I Heard You Paint Houses, i think sounds like a great project for everyone. Leonardo DiCaprio as a younger De Niro, anyone?

So, to conclude, i would like to get a poll going. What is your favourite Scorsese - De Niro collaboration and why?

Answers on a postcard please...

Movie Review - A Serious Man

There are generally two types of Coen brothers film. On the one hand you have your comedies. They are extremely dark in tone and humour, but are still comedies none the less. Raising Arizona, Intolerable Cruelty and O’ Brother Where art Thou? are perfect examples. Then you have your more serious type of Coen Brothers film. Blood Simple, No Country For Old Men and The Man Who Wasn’t There. A Serious Man is smack bang in the middle of these two styles. It is humourous, without being too funny, it is serious, without being depressing, and it might well be my new favourite Coen Brothers film.

The film centres around Larry Gopnik, played by Michael Sthulberg, who is going through some what of a mid-life crisis. The film begins with him getting a medical. His son is in trouble for listening to rock music. His wife asks for a divorce because she is involved with another man, even though there is no “whoopsy doopsy” involved. All of this taking place in the first 10 mintues of the film. What follows is his journey to find his place in life and his attempts to be closer to his family even though his wife is pushing him further and further away. He has to deal with his childlike older brother, problems with his job, his lust for his next door neighbour and his distant children. Not too mention his money problems due to his impending divorce. This is Larry's test.

I know I am a bit late in writing about A Serious Man - I just never got around to seeing it as I live in Watford and they don’t tend to show many art films (though they are still showing Alvin and the Chipmunks 2, I kid you not!) - but I am glad I finally caught it as I thought it was brilliant. I just loved everything about it. The direction, the writing, the acting, the production design, the music,…absolutely everything. All the elements that make the Coen brothers modern great auteurs were present. For example, the seemingly normal characters with abnormal undertones, or odd characters and plain strange incidents. And just like most Coen Brothers films, people talk a great deal, but no one really listens.

On the surface, A Serious Man is a film about faith as we follow Larry through the film whilst he feels like he is being tested. He tries to talking to Rabbis for advice but they are no help. Larry is losing his faith just as his son is about to get his. Larry is a strange mix by being deeply religious but a man of science at the same. When we first see Larry teach, he is describing Schrödinger’s 1935 hypothetical experiment that consisted of a cat in a sealed box with a vial of poison that could break at any random time. Until the box was opened, since no one knew whether or not the poison had been released, the cat was considered both dead and alive at the same time. This is how we feel about Larry. He is alive, yet he is dead. He cannot find his faith. His family treat him as if he isn’t there even though he wants to be and no one is taking him seriously. As Larry gets his life back together again, you feel he might have finally found the right path. It appears as if his wife will take him back, his son has been confirmed and his job is safe. Unfortunately for Larry, in his fails final, and probably fatal, test he caves in to monetary pressures and decides to take a bribe. At this precise moment, the phone rings. It’s his doctor. He wants him to come in right away. What will happen? Like Larry, we don’t know. Like Schrödinger’s cat, he is both dead and yet very much alive at the same time. One thing we do know however, is that a storm is coming.


Every shot in the film feels like it has a purpose and some resonance behind it. Even though the film is slow and well crafted, there is never a point where you feel bored or like you want to do anything other than stare at the screen to see what is coming next. Every camera angle intrigues you. Whether it be a blurred haze of pot smokers, or the slow crafted long shot looking into the head Rabbi’s office.


We are purposely not told what year the film is set in, but it is comfortable middle America where most of the Coen Brothers work take place. Similarly to Fargo, or The Man Who Wasn’t There, we are presented with the typical white picket fence houses and blue skies, but deep down all is not well in most peoples lives. In the surreal nature of A Serious Man, dreams are blurred with reality. Whether it be conversations with Koreans, his sexy lone neighbour to his left or Rabbi’s reciting Jefferson Airplane, there is something going on beneath the façade of humility.

Michael Sthulberg is excellent as Larry Gopnik. He is indeed the serious man while everyone around him appears to be losing their cool or appear to be slightly off key. It is heart breaking to him constantly try and do the right thing. You really feel his pain as he tries to do what’s best, but much to the credit of Michael Sthulberg, it can be infuriating watching him do so. You just want to scream at the screen “STOP! STOP IT! YOU DON’T HAVE TO PAY FOR YOUR WIFE’S NEW LOVER’S FUNERAL! YOU DON’T HAVE TO BE SO NICE ALL THE TIME!”

There were some great performances from the supporting cast. Larry’s brother, Arthur, is a loveable but flawed buffoon. The kids are believable. ‘Curse bus boy’ had me in fits everytime he was on the screen and his son, who is his parallel in the film, does a good job at being spoilt and cares about nothing except weed, TV and music. But it is Fred Melamed who excels as the new love of Larry’s wife, Sy Abelman. Melamed exudes charm, authority and at times sleaziness. He doesn’t even need to be on screen to cast a presence. Even when we only hear him on the phone it is still a joy.

While A Serious Man might not please everyone with it’s surreal nature and quirky characters, not to mention the outright Jewish-ness of the film, I found it a joy reveling in the downright oddities of the film. It is brilliantly crafted, looks great, is perfectly edited and has a great soundtrack and score. Do not be blindly by it’s overt religious nature, as this is a story for everybody, and it asks everyone who watches “How will you deal with your own crisis?” and “How will you cope if you feel you are being tested?”. When that time comes it will ultimately be up to us, but for now, I’ll happily watch Larry Gopnik go through his. As happy as you can be about that sort of thing, of course.

Lost Recap – Season 6 Episode 2: What Kate Does

By Dean Crawford

Last weeks episode ‘LAX – Parts 1 and 2’ were an interesting affair. It was heavily plot driven and full of action. Whilst the episode answered a lot of questions, as you would imagine, it also raised several more. Needless to say I was very excited about this week’s episode ‘What Kate Does’. That was until I finally twigged that this episode would be about my least favourite character, Kate. Then after 5 minutes, I lost all hope, as it would also follow my second least favourite character, Claire. Oh the joy! I know there is a lot of hate on the inter-web for Kate and the way she can come across as heartless in the show, and she gets a bad rap from a lot of die hards for the holy-trinity love triangle. I don’t really care too much for that either, but that’s not the reason I dislike her. I just think her story is boring. As for Claire, I do actually find her story really interesting. The whole first season “you alone must raise this baby” thing I liked. I just can’t stand Emilie de Ravin. She is so whiney and acts hysterical in every single thing she does. And what is the deal with her accent? I know she lived in Australia for nearly twenty years, but her Aussie accent sounds fake, with hints of American thrown in which led me to think she was American. But then you see her in things like Brick, and her American accent sounds fake! Hers isn’t as bad as her mothers accent on the show though. She is supposed to be an Aussie, but keeps on running into hints of Eliza Doolittle! “Ell-ohhhh DOC-TAR SHIP-ERRRRD, moi’ glass o’water is your sister…ya flaming mungrel” Speaking of fake accents, don’t get me started on the portrayal of English accents on Lost. JUST GET A BLOODY ENGLISH PERSON TO PLAY THE ROLE!! Phew. No that’s over, onto the episode…

The episode begins with a close up on feet hurrying in the caves as John Lennon races to the Japanese leader and tells him that “He’s alive!”. The look of shock on Dogen’s face is palpable and we know instantly that this is going to be a big deal. Sayid awakes to the excitement of everyone in the cave except Miles who still can’t understand his journey. Miles can tell something is up, as last week he couldn’t sense anything from Sayid after he died. Jack tells Sayid straight up that he died. Kate can’t fathom how this is even possible, (but apparently the fact that they can travel through time isn’t that much of an issue) but Sawyer isn’t surprised at all and his first thought is escaping. Perfect cue for a flashback on Kate.

Kate’s flash sideways is fairly straightforward but there are a few things to look into. Firstly, Kate is still the same in this time line. She is still running, still shouting, still getting into trouble. As she orders the cab driver to speed off, she makes sure Claire stays with her, but something interesting happens when she sees Jack. There is a long, knowing glance of recognition to her face. It might be because of the fact she recognized him as the guy she stole the pen from on the plane, but I think we can safely deduce after Jack’s recognition of Desmond last week, that the Losties are remembering each other, and are remember things from their other lives. The question that needs to be asked then, is why wouldn’t she have recognized him on the plane? Creative reasons? I read an interesting theory that suggested that in their original time line, Kate and Jack hadn’t yet met each other at this point and shared that moment on the beach stitching up Jack. Therefore their parallel universe hadn’t kicked in yet. So by the time she sees Jack in the taxi, they would met each other on the beach, hence the recognition. But then you could argue why does Kate feel need to help Claire give birth like she did in season one when this also wouldn’t have happened for weeks? I’m thinking destiny is destiny, and no matter what may have happened before, the end game is the same for everybody. So no matter what, Kate will always be involved with Claire and Aaron.

Kate disposes of Claire and manages to find another ex-com who just so happens to understand the complexities of removing handcuffs. Lucky for her! Even luckier for Claire though, is that Kate happens to be driving by as she is waiting for a bus to see the prospective adopters who haven’t come to pick her up. Unfortunately for Claire, they have ditched her so it appears Claire will have to raise the baby herself. This again raises similarities to her on story in Season one. If you recall, it was the Psychic, Richard Malkin, who insisted that Claire raised the baby herself. When he felt like this might not happen, he bought her a ticket to LA as he knew of a couple that would adopt the baby. This is why she was on the plane in the first place. We were lead to believe that Malkin knew the plane would crash, hence forcing Claire to raise Aaron herself. Malkin later admitted he was a fraud to Mr. Ecko when he visited his daughter who drowned. But I think this was for Ecko’s benefit and is a psychic. As for this timeline? We are still yet to find out what brought Claire to the island.

Fate rears its ugly head as Claire goes into labour forcing Kate to see her through labour just like she did on the island. And destiny is at work once again as Ethan is a doctor at the hospital and will take care of Aaron before he is born. Under duress, Claire blurts out Aaron’s name for the first time. It just came to her. So it seems Aaron’s destiny was to always be named so, and to always have Kate and Ethan involved in his birth. And it seems that Claire’s destiny, is to scream, shout and be hysterical every chance she gets.

The police arrive to look for Kate, but Claire throws them off the scent. The two biggest things to come out of this scene, and the whole flash sideways in my opinion, are A) Kate tells Claire that she should raise the baby herself, which I think she will now do. And B) Kate brings up the possibility that she may be innocent. This could be Kate’s attempt at trying to con Claire to get her onboard somehow, but as we have already seen in this timeline, things are drastically different. Take Hugo for example. He is now the luckiest man alive, which is the total opposite from his original timeline. So maybe Kate is innocent. I still feel like she would have had to have done something wrong to have the Feds after her, but something is definitely different.

As Kate leaves, one thought remained in my head the whole time, which was “would we see another Kate and Claire reunion?” If the characters are all going to repeat their actions over and over again no matter what, then doesn’t Kate have to be the one to assist in Aaron’s birth?

Now, back on the island. Sayid is alive, but not for much longer you would think after the look like Sawyer gave him. Sawyer is obviously deeply upset because if the ‘Iraqi torturer who shoots kids’ deserves a second chance, why not Juliet? There might be a philosophical answer to that question, and one that many people theorized back from day one. If you know your bible, and I don’t, Revelation 21:27 states that nothing unclean will enter Heaven. To cleanse oneself you have to enter purgatory, which is a lot how the island feels. What if Sawyer is wrong in thinking that Sayid has been given a second chance whilst Juliet has been left to die. What if Juliet has been allowed to pass on as she has come to terms with everything she has done and has absolved herself. She made amends for all her sins by sacrificing her own life in pushing the reset button and detonating the bomb. She has served her purpose and is allowed to die, much in the same way Michael wasn’t allowed to leave/die until he fulfilled his purposed and sacrificed himself. Sayid was terrified last week of dying, and was sure he was going to hell. So what if Sayid still has one more task to complete before he can be let go? Now I don’t believe that the island is purgatory itself, but the allusions that are being made and the similarities are striking.

Sayid’s joy at returning from the dead is short lived however, as the other’s have plans for him and need to ask a few questions. Unfortunately for Sayid, their style of questioning is unlike anything you would find Bamber Gascoigne attempting on University challenge, as it involves black ash, electrocuting the nipples and a hot poker on the chest. Now I am sure there are a few people reading this who would pay for a service like that, but our man Sayid is faithful to Nadia. The ensuing fight gives Sawyer the chance to escape as he tells them he is leaving and there is nothing they can do to stop him. This scene is very significant as it is the first time Dogen publicly speaks English, adding gravitas to his words. The fact that Sawyer tells them he’s leaving and they just let him is also significant, but more on that later. Sawyer tells Kate not to come after him. So this means that Kate is going to go after him. Yawn.

But in the words of poor old Sayid “Why…? Why are you doing this?”. What are these tests for? What do they want to know and how will their methods help them achieve their results? I think the second they blew the dust on him, we could tell that they wanted to see if he had returned from the dead “bad”. The ash has been used to keep the smoke monster out, so were they trying to test if the smoke monster is inside him? I can’t think what the electricity or hot poker where for, maybe to test his reaction to pain? The smoke monster can’t travel through the Dharma Initiative’s sonar fence, so maybe electricity is a way of catching him out. Either way, it turns out that Sayid is sick. He has been infected or “claimed” as Dogen puts it. If it is Jacob or The Man in Black inside Sayid, there have been hints to this already. Sayid just isn’t acting like himself at the moment. I found it very strange when Sayid became frightened and scared, not like his usual bad-ass self when they were torturing him. The way he said “I don’t have any secrets” seemed rather odd, therefore leads me to believe he does have secrets! Tell us those secrets, Sayid. TELL US!

Jack goes to find answers from Dogen and John Lennon, but in typical Lost fashion, he doesn’t get a straight answer. He tells the guards to let him through and they part for him like Moses parted the red sea so can talk to Dogen who finally reveals himself. Their conversation goes as follows.

Jack: Who are you?
Dogen: My name is Dogen.
Jack: Are you from here, the island?
Dogen: I was brought here, like everyone else.
Jack: What do you mean, brought here?
Dogen: You know exactly what I mean…

I find this conversation interesting because why should Jack know exactly what he means? Jack was brought to the island by Desmond. He subsequently came back because of his new found faith due to John Locke. Didn’t the rest of them come to the island through the Dharma Initiative? Or is he talking about Jacob bringing him to the island? Dogen seems to be quite old school, so I get the impression that he might have been around for a long time. Longer than most. So did the black Rock bring him here? I see him as a Richard type character?

They tell him that Sayid is sick and give him the pill that will make him better. I wasn’t sure whether to believe him or not as I knew something was up with Sayid. They tell Jack he has to be the one who gives Sayid the pill as he wouldn’t accept it from them, and it has to be his choice to take it. Choice seemed to be an issue flowing through the whole episode. Sawyer wanted to leave, so they let him. Kate has to be the one to bring Sawyer back as it has to be his own choice to return. Dogen and John Lennon wanted Jack to come and see them on his own. Sayid has to take the pill willingly. This has been a reoccurring theme for a while now, because if you remember when it came to Ben’s spinal surgery, he couldn’t just force Jack to do it. He wanted him to “want to do it”. Again, when Ben didn’t want to let Jack and Juliet leave in season 3, he couldn’t stop them. But John Locke blew up the sub for him. I think there is something going on in the island that has to do with free will and choices and influence, but I am not too sure what that is yet.

Jack does not trust the others, and thankfully demands some answers. In showing Dogen an alternative method of Seppuku, he swallows the pill himself to gaze Dogens reaction. Yep, it was poison all along! Take that Dogen! The conversation after goes as follows.

Dogen: We believe he has been claimed.
Jack: Claimed? By What?
Dogen: There is a darkness growing in him, and once it reaches his
heart everything your friend once was will be gone.
Jack: How can you be sure of that?
Dogen: Because it happened to your sister!

DUM DUM DUM!!!! I thought this was a great way to end the temple part of the episode, as you would almost be forgiven for forgetting that Jack and Claire are siblings. I’m hoping the return of Claire will mean that we are finally going to get a meeting between Jack and his father. It better bloody happen otherwise there is a very strongly worded letter that is going to be sent to somebody, I can tell you!!

The way Dogen was talking about Sayid’s symptoms was very similar to the way Rousseau used to describe her crew when they first arrived on the island. We even got to see this first hand last season when Jin ran into Rosseau and her crew during his adventures in time-travel. They too became “sick” and “infected” and it seemed as if a “darkness” came over them. This was caused by an encounter with the smoke monster. So is it the smoke monster’s fault again that Sayid is being possessed? This sounds a lot like what Richard said to Kate when he cured Ben. He said he would never be the same again. It looks as if the same can be said of Sayid. Is it the island as a whole that causes the sickness? The spring? Jacob? How did it also happen to Claire? Did she die at the barracks back in season 4 then come back to life infected? Once again, more and more questions.

While al this is going on at the temple, Kate escapes from the others to find Sawyer. She reveals that her intentions are to find Claire and try to make up for what she has done. Jin’s intentions are to find his wife. Apart from the game of cat and mouse, one thing of interest is said. Aldo, whose sole purpose was to act like a total arse hole the whole episode so we would be happy when he got shot, wants to kill Jin. He partner, Justin, tells him not too as he might be “one of them”. Hmm, very interesting? One of whom? Someone special? Is this going back to the days of Jacob and his lists? Does “them” mean the people on Jacob’s list? The people Jacob has seen during the years? Are they “candidates” like Ilana spoke of last year? We know that Sayid’s name was on the list given to Dogen, and we presume the rest of our Losties names are on there also during their role call. It seems that Sawyers name is on that list also, as this would explain his desire for him to stay at the temple. If so, what could Jacob want them for? Is there an end game that requires them all and if so, what is it? I couldn’t fathom a guess at the moment, as I’m not even sure if Jacob is one of the good guys are not.

Just as Jin was about to get shot, Aldo and Justin get smoked. By who? Well none other than Claire! There are several questions to be asked about Claire. For example, where has she been this time? Has she been traveling through time with the rest of the Losties? What about this darkness that has taken over her? Is she good or bad? To be honest, I don’t really care. I just want to see how her reappearance has affected the people around her ie. Christian Shepherd, Locke, Jacob.

So, not a terrible episode, but not a great one either. The lack of Locke (or Flocke as he is now known as Fake + Locke) was a real downer but we still got some more answers there are some more questions raised.

1. Where has Claire been this whole time? How did she learn so many of Rosseau’s tricks?
2. In the alternate timeline, what brought Claire to LA?
3. Will we see a Kate and Claire reunion?
4. Who or what has claimed Sayid? What is the darkness?
5. What does “one of them” mean?
6. How will it end?

How will it end? How will it end? How will it end……

Lost Recap and Analysis – LAX parts 1 and 2

by Dean Crawford

Lost is back, Baby!! As I’ve previously posted (http://thekinkyafro.tumblr.com/#365037822 ), I was very excited for Lost’s return. Now it’s back, and we have 18 episodes to go on what has been one of the biggest TV shows of the last 10 years. I’m not saying it is the best, but it has definitely been one of the biggest. You either love it or hate. And no matter what you say, it has had a such an influence on most TV watchers.

Right, i’m going to quickly recap the first two episodes, give a few thoughts, share a few theories that are going around and hopefully we can add our own thoughts and have a bit of online discussion about it and throughout the season each week.

I liked the fact that right away we were shown the affect of the bomb going off. We were right back where we started and shown an alternate reality. One in which Oceanic flight 815 didn’t crash. We have had flash-backs, flash-forwards, now have the “flash-sideways”. I personally like this idea. I have always wondered what the losties lives would have been like if they crash hadn’t of happened, now we are set to find out. Right at the start of the episode we are introduced to all our favourite characters once again. (As a side note, it appears as if the Lost producers theory could be steeped in reality and I think partially based on string theory. Have a butchers at this - http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2001/paralleluni.shtml )

Jack’s back - but this time with longer hair than he had 3 years ago. Has Jack changed so much in this alternate reality, that he no longer shaves his head? Or is it that he has to keep it long for continuity in the on-island story line?

Desmond - It was nice seeing him so soon, but sadly i feel that will be the last we see of him. In this time line he is married. To Penny? Quite possibly. If you feel showing us the island submerged in water is confirmation that the bomb went off in this time-line, then there would have been no Widmore to screw with desmonds life. No Widmore, no boat race. It was interesting to see how Desmond’s appearance sparked a sense of deja vu in Jack. It’s like he remembers something from his past, or his alternate reality. Will this happen for all the characters? As a side note, the book he was reading was “Haroun and the Sea of Stories” by Salman Rushdie which, accordiang to Wikipedia, is about a city so old that it’s name has been forgotten. Sound familiar? There’s also “an electromagnetic device intended to destroy the ocean” which again fits it with what has just happened in the finale of Season 5.

Rose – Shorter hair but it’s the same wise old Rose. Did anyone else get the feeling that she has an idea about what’s going on? She seemed a little bit defensive when Jack asked if she had seen Desmond. Maybe she knows how special Desmond has been in the past. Or maybe Desmond was never really there but she didn’t want to engage in his craziness. She also looked very happy. Is her cancer cured, or did it never happen?

Locke is the same old Locke unfortunately – Lying about what a great hunter-gatherer he is when we know that the people on the walkabout wouldn’t let him on the plane. Or did they? Ooooooohhhhh???

Hurley - In this alternate reality, Hurley is now the luckiest man alive and loves the money he has won. I’m guessing it’s because the island in this timeline has been destroyed so he never got a chance to use the numbers from the island to play on the lottery.

Kate – Still running. It seems as if she is still the same and is on the exact same path as before. Kate bores me. Zzzz. Next!

Sawyer – Sawyer seems less angry. Did he kill the real Sawyer in Australia. I’m guessing he wouldn’t have met Jacob in this time-line, therefore didn’t get the pen and the motivation to keep writing his letter. He seems a bit too nice if you ask me and I think he was eyeing up Hurley for a con.

Jin and Sun - Good news for Sun! The bomb didn’t go off so now she can get back with the old misogynistic Jin back who berates her in public for showing the slightest amount of flesh. Hooray! Were they still on the same timeline? Was Sun still going to leave Jin. No English! No English? Does this mean she never cheated on Jin?

The Cameos – It was good seeing Charlie back again, still in seemingly pissed off rock star mode as he tells Jack “I was supposed to die”. Yeah, choking on a bag of heroin without even getting the full benefits of shooting some up…great way to go! Boone was back, but without his sister which was a shame. But then again, I doubt she would have been able to wear her bikini on the plane so who cares! Charlie was on the same journey, but not Boone. Hmm, interesting. Claire came back in the end but we didn’t see if she was pregnant or not. Artz was back for a cameo as was “Froghurt”.

But you know who was missing? Michael and Walt. Not to mention Ecko, Anna-Lucia, the big gaping plot hole that is Libby. She was in a mental home with hurley and gave Desmond his boat for Christ sake! Is there not going to be even the slightest mention of that again? Maybe in this timeline those guys never get on the plane. Or maybe the producers couldn’t afford one too many cameos.

Another thing I’m liking about the sideways plot line, is that it is in keeping with the “Whatever happened, happened” theory. Things are destined to repeat themselves no matter what. There have been so many coincidences during the previous 5 seasons of lost. It looks like things are on a loop, and no matter what timeline or path the characters take, it is their destiny to meet each other. In this new, alternate timeline, we still have Jack and Desmond coming together. Boone and Locke still form a bond and he even says “if this thing crashes, I’m sticking with you”. The FBI agent still gets his head bashed in. Claire and Kate have still come together though we don’t yet know if this will involve Aaron. Though some people are special and can remember certain things, hence the déjà vu, while others just follow there designed scripts. Is this what the producers had intended the whole time? Or have they just been reading the imdb Lost forums and decided to pick whatever theory they though fit the best and decided to take the show in that direction for the final season?

Righto, briefly onto the on-island stuff.

Hurley – sees Jacob and he tells them where to go.

Juliet – dies AGAIN! Though she does have a Charlotte moment where she appears to be traveling through time as she is about to die. “We should get coffee…”. One thing I’m wondering here is that if she did set the bomb off and destroy the hatch, just like Desmond did at the end of Season 2, why has she been killed and Desmond wasn’t? Will she back in the future?

Miles – Still talking to the dead which I like to see. Tells Sawyer Juliet said “It worked!”. So is she a ghost floating around now?

We then come across another set of OTHERS. Yep, there are more others out there. These guys have no time for small talk and would have killed our group unless Hurley mentioned Jacob. This set of others seem far removed from the Dharma others that lived in the barracks. Do they even know of each other? What have they been doing this whole time? The guy with glasses looked a little like John Lennon, right? This group seem like an original set of others, but then Cindy the flight attendant is there so I am not too sure about that.

Hurley’s guitar case – we find out it was carrying an ankh, which is the symbol of eternal life. Inside is a note which pretty much says save Sayid.

Well, they didn’t do too good a job of that, as they actually drown him instead. It seemed weird, but I didn’t think jack did a very good job of trying to bring Sayid back to life. I remember in Season one he spent about 10 minutes trying to bring Charlie back, and he had been dead much longer than Sayid.

So, is Sayid really dead? Is he still the same Sayid? Is he Jacob? Was the hourglass used because that was the length of time someone has to be purged before they can be reborn? Is he Jacob? If he isn’t Jacob, what about these risks? Will he turn evil like Ben? I’m looking forward to finding out.

And last but not least, the scene with “Locke”. It was awesome seeing what most people had been theorizing, that this Locke/Man in black was in fact the smoke monster. He also tells us his motives. He simply wants to go home. Where is his home? We learned last year that the smoke monster lives in the temple and that it is a security system. This is puzzling, because once the others in the temple find out the man in black is back (I’m sure there is a song in there somewhere…), they go crazy and start laying down the black ash we saw at the cabin to protect themselves. Why has it now changed? I’m guessing that without a human form, he is controllable, like we saw with Ben in season 4. Maybe the temple is it’s home, and he wants it back.

Why couldn’t the smoke monster have done this before though? And was the man in black living in the cabin the whole time? If so, how did he become trapped with Ash in the cabin? When did he break out as he’s been flying around judging people for ages now. Who broke the ash circle? And if Ben and John have been looking for the cabin this whole time, does that mean it was the man in black, and not Jacob in there every time we have visited it?

More and more questions raised and not a lot of time left to answer them in. Some other thoughts/Questions

• Have all the flashbacks/forwards thus far been alternate realities also?
• Is it 2004?
• Is Jack’s cut on his neck real?
• How different from their original timeline is this flash sideways timeline for each character?
• Will we see Desmond, Rose, Bernard, Charlie and Boone again?
• Why do we still have the 2004-on island storyline? I like seeing the what might have happened storyline, but why are we still on the island if Juliet’s effort to blow up the bomb worked?

So, this season we have two realities existing side by side, but which one will prevail. I really can’t wait to see how they wrap everything up. Only 16 more episodes to go!

So, what do you all think? Any thoughts, discussions, ideas, suggestions? Agree with anything I’ve said? Disagree? Think I’m a full of sh…?

Peace.