Lexicology

Watching the clip of President Obama at the Wizards-Bulls game a thought occurred to me: can you call the President the "leader of the free world"? It seems like a Cold War anachronism because the world is not bipolar anymore. Also, in what sense(s) could you call the U.S. the "leader"? Certainly we have the plurality of military and economic might, but in what areas have we led lately?

Other thought: should the president be doing in expensive activities like going to NBA games? I love that we have a personable president who gets out and enjoys basketball.  It seems to be a political risk because it may not portray the proper thrift that the times demand.

Indiana Jones and the Unnecessary Sequel

I really enjoyed the Indiana Jones movies growing up and fondly remember playing the Last Crusade computer game (where you just do what he did in the movie) in 5th grade computer class. So, I was wary about ruining my affection for those movies with a 66-year old Harrison Ford.

Sadly, I was proven correct. The movie is completely unbelievable... as in non-believable. The story involves aliens and Communists (Nazi-thwarting is way more entertaining) and surviving a nuclear explosion and a tough-guy Shia LaBeouf and monkey-kids (all the depiction of South Americans are shamefully racist) that haunt ruins and ESP. I did not put any of that in a spoiler section because it all happens in the first 30-45 minutes. In the first action sequence Harrison Ford is trying to escape and it looks baaaad. I mean, I think they sped up the tape to make him look like he was climbing and running faster than he was. The combined effect makes this movie entirely over-the-top non-believable. The Lost Ark and the Last Crusade (the good ones of the three) are predicated on historical/religious lore. This one is all made up stuff with splashes of historical plausibility.

The worst part of the whole thing, is that if this movie didn't have the Indiana Jones label, it would not have been made. The movie has no art in it anywhere. The casting of Shia is a transparent way of extending the franchise (or at least testing the waters).  I hope the producers recognize the mistake they have made and just let the series end.

Positivity section: There is an extended care chase/fight scene that is entertaining and sort of reminiscent of the car chase/fight scene in the Last Crusade. It too, however, is riddled with weirdness and unbelievability.

Recommendation: Don't see it unless its on TV, there's nothing else on and you won't really be paying attention.

No new Office?!

The fact that all my favorite TV shows took a week off is very disappointing. I did find this outtake from last week's episode Lecture Circuit, Part 2. Enjoy!

First Lost Post

[Note: As this blog gets underway I will preface my thoughts on any particular episode by talking about my general opinions about the TV show. But just for the first time I talk about a show. Also, when I talk about TV shows, I'm not going to separate spoilers.]

Preface: I really like Lost. I've seen every episode twice (at least) to keep past events fresh in my mind. It probably goes with out saying that the biggest part of my attraction to the show is trying to figure out what's going on before they reveal it. I like the supernatural aspects of the show. Part of me feels that the island is really (and has been all along) an allegory for purgatory but they did it too obviously so they've been giving other possibilities to throw the viewers off. I also like talking about it, because everyone sees different things in the shows. As much as I like it, I'm not on any of the message boards and I don't obsess over the little things in the episodes. There are contextual consistencies that the production crew maintains, but I'm not sure that they build foreshadowing and hidden information into the episodes.

316: I thought this episode was disappointing. I almost wrote that this episode was boring... but it wasn't. It moves the action from LA back to the island but we didn't learn anything, except five of the six (plus Ben, Locke's body, and Lapidus) get back to the island. We meet Jack's grandfather, but I doubt he will be important. I suspect that maybe Jack's grandfather has been to the island, based on nothing more than, his tone, speculation and the existence of some other generational ties to the island (Charlotte and Miles). The actor who plays the grandfather was well-cast because he had a pretty close "Shepherd" look and voice.

The episode is titled "316" which sounds like John 3:16,

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (From Wikipedia)

By flying on Flight 316 to get back to the island are they getting everlasting life? Does it simply mean that because they believe Ms. Hawking they won't die on Flight 316? This would reinforce the religious allegory (say... purgatory) assertion. 

Which brings me to my current big big-picture question: Is Jack going to be the island's new permanent leader (the position that Ben was in, which Locke took over)? I have always thought that Jack is the center of the show. I mean, the VERY first image you see in the pilot is Jack. Locke is dead (right? maybe he'll come back to life- like Jack's dad- when they reach the island a la purgatory) and Ben left the island so he may not be the central figure when they reach the present day. Plus Jack's dad is Jacob's face/voice (or maybe actually Jacob?!) so he has a tie to the island's spirit (which would be reinforced if Jack's grandfather had been to the island too). Towards the bottom of the resume: Jack was the force behind the Losties and I don't think that was a coincidence. 

Side note: The Jack character bothers me sometimes when the story has him shaped by events, rather than shaping events. He's the leader of the Losties (Jack SHEPHERD, comeon?) and should be kicking ass and taking names. 

Interesting Plot Questions: Where is Aaron? Does his absence affect anything? If you remember way back, the fortune teller implored Claire (where is she btw?) to raise Aaron herself... His absence has to be significant. 

Why would Sun leave her kid? It seems implausible for her to leave her child to look for Jin.

Did Ben kill Penelope? I'm pretty sure the "promise" that Ben went to keep was to kill Widmore's daughter. Since she was there with Desmond, I think that could explain it. This could be a device to get Desmond back to the island (kill Ben, resurrect her because the island is purgatory, etc.).

Other thoughts: 

1) I've gotten into Ken Ken, the Soduku-like game that the NYT puts next to the daily crossword. It's fun.

2) T-Mac ruins my day. For the first few years in the league he was my favorite player. I was ecstatic when he came to the Rockets. But now, I resent him and see him as just another player. I don't want to hear any more about him unless its "T-Mac for ____" until he is dressing for games.

Inappropriate pun

Hancock. Right off the bat, with the title, things aren't looking good. But, I've watched many Will Smith blockbusters and consider them a part of my formative years (ID4, Bad Boys, Men in Black, Ali, I Robot, etc.) and am a HUGE fan of Fresh Prince. Plus, I like superhero TV (maybe not any more) and movies so I had to give this one a looksy.

Rating: Its not bad, but its not good. 

If you're watching the movie, you're probably prepared for a blockbuster and so aren't looking for any meaning out of your experience. You don't expect character development, significant statements on life/the world, and you don't really care if there is logical consistency (See Spoiler Section Note 2). Also, you expect a small degree of homophobic, racist, and sexist remarks and portrayals that demonstrate "mainstream" views or "everyman-ness" (gender bias intended). This movie had some (especially up front), but didn't beat you over the head with machoness and only had a taste of homophobia.

I like the flawed superhero aspect (super people can have emotions and personal shortcomings too!). Also, the financial toll that he wreaked on the city was an amusing touch of realism. Everyone in the movie played their parts well, but no one made their career on this movie.

At the same time, I was not entertained. The effects are okay, but it seems like they implied more than they actually show. They talk about the messed up stuff (destroyed buildings, trains, etc.) and flash some digital images (not bad quality, but obvious) of destruction here and there to paint the picture but, as long as you're taking me there, bring it. See Spoiler Section Note 1.

Another crucial aspect that was missing was any sort of interesting aspect to the story. Jason Bateman (I don't know if his character's name is ever said, its certainly not important) is trying to reform Hancock- this isn't giving away anything. The natural story line is for the superhero to try and reform and mess up a bunch of times on his path towards goodness- hilarity ensues. Instead, the answer is for him to go to prison. Not funny or interesting. There is an unforeseen twist that comes about 5/8 of the way into the movie, but it completely changes the movie into a weird sort of romance thing. The climactic action is fairly obvious although the villain does not enter into the equation until 20 minutes left into the movie. Probably not giving too much away by saying that there is room for a sequel here (although, to be fair, even if the end had not been favorable to a sequel the $62 million opening weekend and $227 million gross probably is favorable for a sequel) but please no.

Best Part of the Movie: Charlize Theron (her, her character, and um...her)

Biggest pet peeve: no good one-liners. 

Biggest let down: No allusions to Jason Bateman and Charlize Theron's previous collaboration on Arrested Development. (At least that I could see... I wasn't going to watch it again to find them).

Best thing to do if you're not going to really watch the movie: Scour the internet for updates on the possible Vince Carter trade to Houston.

(Warning: spoilers below)

----------------

Spoiler section- for further commentary on things that give away information.

1. The superhero fight scene could have been a lot better. It was a lot of close up shots of them wrestling, and it seems like the hallmark of superhero fighting is creative use of your surroundings, which that scene didn't really have.

2. Logical Consistency- So, if they are weaker when they're around each other- why didn't Hancock die when Charlize Theron threw him through the house? He- and a fridge- went through a wall into several cars and into the street- what's up with that? Moreover, how come they didn't kill each other when they were fighting? Even if the argument is that they had to have strong feelings of love for them to become weak, why didn't Charlize die? She didn't lose her memory and still loved him.

What up

Lucy's doing it and Arianna Huffington told me I should be doing it too. Good enough for me!

Welcome to Will's Reviews! I will use this web log to provide the world with my opinions on all of the TV and bad movies I watch, because frankly I don't waste enough time on them as it is. Also, some Houston, Texas, sports, politics, and Duke basketball-related matters might appear from time-to-time.