The Problem With Rey

kinopoisk-ru-star-wars_3a-the-force-awakens-2696371

THE PROBLEM WITH REY

I suspect that many do not want to hear or read this. But I have to say something. I feel that Lucasfilm and J.J. Abrams went TOO FAR in their creation of Rey for “STAR WARS: EPISODE VII – THE FORCE AWAKENS”. She is a Mary Sue. She is too perfect. And I am not afraid to admit it.

Why is it that STAR WARS fans demand that the saga’s leading women characters should be written as ideal or perfect? That is not a good idea for a well written character. A well written character should have a balance of flaws and virtues. Rey is ALL VIRTUES. She has no flaws. Not really. In a short space of time, she learned to fly a spacecraft and tap into the Force in order to use the Jedi Mind Trick and use a lightsaber to defeat an opponent already trained with the ways of the Force – namely Kylo Ren aka Ben Solo. If it were not for her interactions with the former stormtrooper Finn, I would find her completely boring.

This is why I prefer a character like Bathsheba Everdene from Thomas Hardy’s 1874 novel, “Far From the Madding Crowd”. As a character, Bathsheba was an interesting mixture of virtues and flaws. She was a better written character than someone like Rey.  EvenSTAR WARS characters like Leia Organa and Padme Amidala managed to be better written, due to the fact that the two characters possessed both virtues and flaws – despite fandom’s demand that they be regarded as ideal.

As for Rey, I hope and pray that Rian Johnson, who is now serving as director and screenwriter for “EPISODE VIII”, has made her character more complex. If not, I cannot see myself being interested in her story for the next two films.

Favorite Movie Villains of 2015

Kingsman-the-secret-service-red-band-trailer

The year 2015 was filled with some very memorable screen villains.  I am certain that many have their own opinions of what constituted their favorite villains. Well … I have mine. Below is that list of my favorite movie villains from 2015:



FAVORITE MOVIE VILLAINS OF 2015 

 

 

1. Samuel L. Jackson as Richmond Valentine (“Kingsman: The Secret Service”) – I have to say it. Samuel Jackson has created some very memorable characters throughout his career – both heroic and villainous. But his portrayal of high tech tycoon, Richmond Valentine, has to be very high on the list. Not only was his goal – to decimate the majority of mankind in order to save the Earth – diabolical, but his lisp and aversion to violence made his character extremely memorable. Extremely.

 

 

2. Corey Stoll as Darren Cross aka Yellowjacket (“Ant-Man”) – It is a pity that Marvel Studios seemed incapable of maintaining its gallery of villains. One of the best Marvel villains I have come across in quite a while was Corey Stoll’s interpretation of Darren Cross aka Yellowjacket, scientist and CEO of Hank Pym’s company. Stoll’s Cross projected daddy issues with a style that rivaled Loki from the THOR movies, thanks to the actor’s performance.

 

 

3. Elizabeth Debicki as Victoria Vinciguerra (“The Man From U.N.C.L.E.”) – Elizabeth Debicki gave a deliciously entertaining, yet subtle performance as the cool and cruel Victoria Vinciguerra, the leader of a neo-fascist criminal organization and co-owner of a shipping company, who harbored plans to build a nuclear weapon for her own personal use.

 

 

4. Donald Sutherland as President Coriolanus Snow (“The Hunger Games: Mockingjay, Part II”) – For the fourth time, Donald Sutherland did an excellent in creeping out movie audiences as the cruel and manipulative leader of Panem, as his character resorts to extraordinary methods to put down a rebellion.

 

 

5. Haley Joel Osment as Travis McCerdle (“Entourage: the Movie”) – I never thought in a million years that I would see Haley Joel Osment portray a truly unpleasant character, let alone make this list. But he proved to be the sole gem in an otherwise entertaining, yet mediocre film as the son of a Texas billionaire, who is given authority to oversee his father’s investment in Ari Gold’s film. Osment’s performance struck me as so spot-on that he almost resembled a living embodiment of excrement. He has come a long way.

 

 

6. James Spader as Ultron (“The Avengers: Age of Ultron”) – Another Marvel villain bit the dust this year. But before he (or it) did, audiences were treated to a superb voice performance by actor James Spader as the self-aware artificial intelligence bent upon decimating humanity. Not only was Spader’s performance a joy to hear, he had one of the best lines in the movie.

 

 

7. Jennifer Jason-Leigh as Daisy Domergue (“The Hateful Eight”)– In a movie filled with villains, the most memorable for me turned out to be Daisy Domergue, an outlaw being escorted to her execution by ruthless bounty hunter John Ruth. What made Jason-Leigh’s Daisy so memorable was her penchant for sadistic humor, vengeful nature and more importantly her patience. Despite being smacked around throughout most of the movie, the actress superbly conveyed just how ruthless Miss Domergue could actually be.

 

 

8. Hugh Laurie as David Nix (“Tomorrowland”) – Hugh Laurie gave a subtle, yet sardonic performance as David Nix, the mayor of Tomorrowland, who valued technological achievement over scientific originality. Laurie did an excellent job in conveying the character’s paranoia and willingness to resort extreme methods – including murder – in order to maintain the status quo – something he strongly supported. His rant against humanity is a must-see for any moviegoer.

 

 

9. Julianne Moore as President Alma Coin (“The Hunger Games: Mockingjay, Part II”) – Julianne Moore gave a very subtle performance as the leader of Panem’s District 13 and the rebellion against the Capitol. At first glance, her efforts to free Panem from President Snow’s rule seemed very genuine. But Moore did an excellent job in occasionally conveying Coin’s manipulative and patient personality, along with a penchant for bloodletting that rivaled Snow’s.

 

 

10. Christoph Waltz as Ernst Stavros Blofeld (“SPECTRE”) – Christoph Waltz became the fifth actor to portray British agent James Bond’s biggest nemesis, Ernst Stavros Blofeld, head of criminal/terrorist organization SPECTRE. And he gave a memorable performance, project the character’s ruthlessness, intelligence, sadism and … dare I say it … charm? Waltz’s Blofeld made a very charming sadist, only rivaled by Telly Savalas’ portrayal in the late 1960s.

Favorite Films Set in the 1940s

The-1940s

Below is a list of my favorite movies (so far) that are set in the 1940s:

FAVORITE FILMS SET IN THE 1940s

1-Inglourious Basterds-a

1. “Inglourious Basterds” (2009) – Quentin Tarantino wrote and directed this Oscar nominated alternate history tale about two simultaneous plots to assassinate the Nazi High Command at a film premiere in German-occupied Paris. The movie starred Brad Pitt, Melanie Laurent and Oscar winner Christoph Waltz.

2-Captain America the First Avenger

2. “Captain America: The First Avenger” (2011) – Chris Evans made his first appearance in this exciting Marvel Cinematic Universe installment as the World War II comic book hero, Steve Rogers aka Captain America, who battles the Nazi-origin terrorist organization, HYDRA. Joe Johnston directed.

kinopoisk.ru-Devil-in-a-Blue-Dress-1807368

3. “Devil in a Blue Dress” (1995) – Denzel Washington starred in this excellent adaptation of Walter Mosley’s 1990 novel about a laid off factory worker who becomes a private detective, after he is hired to find a missing woman with connection to a local politician in post-World War II Los Angeles. Directed by Carl Franklin, the movie co-starred Don Cheadle, Jennifer Beals and Tom Siezmore.

3-Bedknobs and Broomsticks

4. “Bedknobs and Broomsticks” (1971) – Angela Landsbury and David Tomilinson starred in this excellent Disney adaptation of Mary Norton’s series of children’s stories about three English children, evacuated to the countryside during the Blitz, who are taken in by a woman studying to become a witch in order to help the Allies fight the Nazis. Robert Stevenson directed.

4-The Public Eye

5. “The Public Eye” (1992) – Joe Pesci starred in this interesting neo-noir tale about a New York City photojournalist (shuttlebug) who stumbles across an illegal gas rationing scandal involving the mob, a Federal government official during the early years of World War II. Barbara Hershey and Stanley Tucci co-starred.

5-A Murder Is Announced

6. “A Murder Is Announced” (1985) – Joan Hickson starred in this 1985 adaptation of Agatha Christie’s 1950 novel about Miss Jane Marple’s investigation of a series of murders in an English village that began with a newspaper notice advertising a “murder party”. Directed by David Giles, the movie co-starred John Castle.

6-Hope and Glory

7. “Hope and Glory” (1987) – John Boorman wrote and directed this fictionalized account of his childhood during the early years of World War II in England. Sarah Miles, David Hayman and Sebastian Rice-Edwards starred.

7-The Godfather

8. “The Godfather” (1972) – Francis Ford Coppola co-wrote and directed this Oscar winning adaptation of Mario Puzo’s 1969 novel about the fictional leaders of a crime family in post-World War II New York City. Oscar winner Marlon Brando and Oscar nominee Al Pacino starred.

8-Valkyrie

9. “Valkyrie” (2008) – Bryan Singer directed this acclaimed account of the plot to assassinate Adolf Hitler in July 1944. Tom Cruise, Bill Nighy and Tom Wilkinson starred.

9-The Black Dahlia

10. “The Black Dahlia” (2006) – Brian DePalma directed this entertaining adaptation of James Ellroy’s 1987 novel about the investigation of the infamous Black Dahlia case in 1947 Los Angeles. Josh Harnett, Scarlett Johansson, Aaron Eckhart and Hilary Swank starred.

10-Stalag 17

Honorable Mention: “Stalag 17” (1953) – Billy Wilder directed and co-wrote this well done adaptation of the 1951 Broadway play about a group of U.S. airmen in a prisoner-of-war camp in Germany, who begin to suspect that one of them might be an informant for the Nazis. Oscar winner William Holden starred.

“Trapped By a Title”

fanpop

“TRAPPED BY A TITLE”

I feel sorry for Emma Swan. I may not like her very much at the moment. But I do feel sorry for her. More importantly, she has become, since Season Two, one of the most frustrating characters on “ONCE UPON A TIME”. Which is probably why I have just written my third or fourth article about her.

From the moment her son Henry Mills found her in the series’ premiere episode, (1.01) “Pilot” and revealed that she was destined to break a curse cast by his adopted mother, Regina Mills that currently trapped the citizens of Storybrooke; she has been stuck with the role of “Savior”. Yes, I said “stuck”. Because there is no other way to describe her situation, pre-“Dark One” curse. And she will continue to be stuck in the role, once she breaks free of the curse. Henry was the first to forced the role of “Savior”. After Emma broke that first curse, her parents – Snow White and David Prince Chraming – and other citizens of Storybrooke enforced that role upon her as well. But I think this was a mistake on Edward Kitsis and Adam Horowitz’s part. They should have dropped the “Savior” title, after Season One. Instead, they have allowed other characters, including the reformed Regina, to insist that she is the “Savior”.

For me, this is so wrong on so many levels. Perhaps Kitsis and Horowitz are trying to re-create another Buffy Summers. Who knows? But this insistence that she has to be this savior who is supposed to be solely responsible for the lives of others and guarantee their happy endings is ridiculous. And it does not serve Emma’s emotional growth as many believe it will. Instead, it has become something of a character straight jacket. As long as Emma continues to allow the others to dictate what she has to do for the rest of her life, she will never grow as an individual or as a character. Being “the Savior”should not have been her job description in the first place. This is something that was enforced upon her by Rumpelstiltskin’s manipulation, because he wanted a way to the “Land Without Magic” in order to find his missing son, Baelfire. And the Storybrooke citizens have inflicted this role upon her, due to their inability to see her as someone other than a glorified magical vigilante. There is no real law that she has to spend the rest of her life giving people “happy endings”. I see no reason why she always has to be the one who has to defeat some magical Big Bad. Past seasons have allowed others like Regina, Rumpelstiltskin, Snow White, Henry and Anna of Arendelle (via emotional persuasion) to defeat or help defeat the Big Bad. So why is everyone still insisting that Emma has to be “the One”?

However, I fear that once Emma is freed from the “Dark One” curse, she will continue to allow everyone to squeeze her into some straight jacket labeled “Savior”. Because of this belief that she always has to save someone, Emma ended up making one of the biggest mistakes in her life in the Season Three finale, (3.22) “There’s No Place Like Home” when she tried to change the timeline and save Maid Marian’s life. She thought that because she was “the Savior”, she had the right to commit the dangerous act of changing the timeline in order to save someone who had died in the past. Yet, she also believed that Rumpelstiltskin did not have the right to change the timeline in order to prevent Neal’s death. Not only were Emma’s actions hypocritical, they also led to Zelena’s resurgence in their lives (Rumpelstiltskin helped with his so-called act of murder). In the Season Four finale, (4.23) “Operation Mongoose, Part 2” she called herself saving Regina’s moral compass – something which the latter never asked in the first place – from an entity that eventually led her to become the new “Dark One”.

Four years have passed since Emma first found herself stuck with the role of “Savior”. This role has proven to be something of an emotional strain for other fictional “saviors” and “chosen ones” such as Buffy Summer, Jack Shepherd, and Harry Potter. I find it odd that other than late Season One when Henry and August Booth aka Pinocchio kept insisting that she has to break that first curse, Emma has never really dealt with any emotional strain over being a “chosen one”. And the only reason she found it a strain was due to her inability to believe Henry and August about the curse. I find this both odd and unrealistic. The longer other “chosen one” or “savior” characters were forced to accept this role, the harder it became for them to deal with it. Instead, Emma dealt with the problems of her relationship with her parents and Neal, the growing strength of her powers, Henry’s amnesia in late Season Three, Regina’s anger in early Season Four over her time travel escapades, and her parents’ lies regarding Maleficent and the latter’s child, former childhood friend Lily Page. But not since Season One can I recall Emma dealing with the pressures of being the “Savior”.

It occurred to me that sooner or later, Emma needs to break free of that role/straight jacket in order to dictate her own life. I am not stating that she needs to stop saving others or stop being a town sheriff (despite being lousy at the job). But she does not have to make being the “Savior” a life long job description. If Emma continues down this path, she just might make another mistake on the same level as the one she made in “There’s No Place Like Home” or make a decision similar to the one that led her to become the “Dark One” . . . or something even worse. And she will never have the freedom to be herself.

The Meaning of Colors

280665_1249671376862_full

 

THE MEANING OF COLORS

Several years ago, I came across an old website about Wiccan practices and meanings. I was surprised to discover that even before the advent of Wicca in the early 20th century, Pagan worshipers associated colors with certain meanings. And those meanings turned out to be quite different than many people would today assume.

Unlike today’s societies – especially in the Western world – white or light did not automatically mean something good, pure or noble. In fact, even the white wedding dress has nothing to do with the lack of sexual experience or innocence of the bride. The white wedding dress started out as a fashion trend . . . and remains one to this day. This fashion trend was created by Britain’s Queen Victoria when she married Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg in 1840. The young queen wanted to show that she was just a “simple” woman getting married, so she wore a white dress. She also wanted to incorporate some lace into her dress. Queen Mary of Scots wore a white wedding gown when she married Francis, Dauphin of France. Why? Because white was her favorite color. Before Victoria, women usually wore their best outfit for their wedding.

But there are the exceptions in which white is used as a negative form of symbolism in Western culture. One of the major villains in C.S. Lewis’ “THE CHRONICLES OF NARNIA” literary series is Jadis, the White Witch of Narnia. There is nothing dark about this character’s physical appearance and wardrobe. She is all white. Another example of a villainous character who wore a white costume is Thomas Arashikage aka Storm Shadow from the “G.I. JOE” movie franchise. Ironically, Storm Shadow is a Japanese character portrayed by South Korean actor Lee Byung-hun. And white is usually associated with negative traits and death in Asian cultures.

Albinism is also associated with the color white and negative traits in various forms of popular culture . Albino characters can be found in movies like “COLD MOUNTAIN”, “THE DA VINCI CODE”, “THE MATRIX RELOADED”; and in novels like “The Invisible Man” and “Blood Meridian”. And all of these characters are either portrayed villains or those with negative traits. However, these are rare forms of white used as negative symbols and stereotypes.

So, what was the color white associated with . . . at least in Pagan circles? Simple. The color was associated with psychic pursuits, psychology, dreams, astral projection, imagination and reincarnation. Apparently moral goodness or purity has nothing to do with the color white. At least in old Pagan terms. Which leads me to this question . . . why do today’s Western societies insist that white has anything to do with moral compass of any form.

Finally, we come to the color black. As many people should know, modern Western societies tend to associate black or anything dark as something evil or negative. There are probably other societies that do the same. Fictional characters associated with evil in many science-fiction/fantasy stories are usually associated with black. Sorcery that has a negative effect upon someone is either called “black magic” or “the Dark Arts” (at least with the “HARRY POTTER” and Buffyverse franchises. And in the “POTTER” series, wizards and witches who have given in to evil are labeled as “dark”. The “STAR WARS” franchise usually refer to evil as “the Dark Side of the Force”.

In the “ONCE UPON A TIME” television series, the Rumpelstiltskin character was also called “the Dark One”. Why? As it turned out, some entity called “the Darkness” had entered his body after he had stabbed the former holder of “the Dark One” title. Apparently, show runners Edward Kitsis and Adam Horowitz could not find a name for the entity and called it “The Darkness” – automatically associating its black coloring with evil. Now it seems that the series’ main character, Emma Swan, has been given the name, due to the entity entering her body. The ironic thing is that Emma’s physical appearance – her skin, her eyes and hair – have become pale or white. Yet, she dresses in black and is called “the Dark One” or “the Dark Swan”. I am still shaking my head over this contrast. As for magic, sorcery, or even psychic abilities in many of these movies and television shows, it is clear that their creators/show runners associate dark or black with evil and light or white with goodness. The only fictional character I can recall that go against this grain is Snake Eyes from the “G.I. JOE” movie franchise. Not only is he villain Storm Shadow’s main adversary and one of the main heroes of the G.I. Joe team, he also wears a black costume.

Ironically, long time Pagans associated the color black with the following – binding, protection, neutralization, karma, death manifestation and will power. Someone might say – “A ha! Death manifestation! This is a term can be regarded as something negative or evil.” But can it? Why is death constantly regarded as something negative? Because people are incapable of truly facing the idea of death. It is a natural part of our life span and yet, many people cannot accept it. And because of this negative attitude toward death, society associates death with . . . you guess it . . . the color black. Apparently the Pagans believed differently and did not associate black with anything evil or negative. I was surprised to discover that Chinese culture regard black as a symbol of water, one of the five fundamental elements believed to compose all things. The Chinese also associated black with winter, cold, and the direction North, usually symbolized by a black tortoise. Black is also associated with disorder – including the positive disorder which leads to change and new life.

I have one last statement to make. I have noticed a growing trend on Internet message boards and forums for television shows and movies that deal with science-fiction and fantasy. This trend features a tendency by many of these fans to automatically associate white/light with goodness and black/dark with evil. The fans on these message boards no longer use the words “good” and “evil” anymore. Honestly. I am deadly serious. These fans either use the words light (lightness) or white; or . . . dark (darkness) or black. Why? And why do the creators of these television shows and movie franchises resort to the same behavior? I have to wonder. By associating anything black or dark with evil, are they associating anything or anyone with dark or black skin with evil? I suspect that many would say “of course not”. Considering the notorious reputation of science-fiction/fantasy fans (or geeks) of being racist, I have to wonder.

 

Rumple

“LOST”: The Death of Nathan

“LOST”: THE DEATH OF NATHAN

(2.07) ”The Other 48 Hours” is the 31st episode of ”LOST” that aired on November 16, 2005. This episode featured the Tail Section passengers of Oceanic Air Flight 815 and the story of their first forty-eight (48) days on the island. A controversy popped out from nowhere in this episode and it featured a fellow survivor named Nathan, whose death led to a barrage of criticism aimed at another character – Ana-Lucia Cortez, portrayed by Michelle Rodriguez.

The previous episode, (2.06) ”Abandoned” ended with the kidnapping of one of the Tail Section survivors, stewardess Cindy Chandler (Kimberly Joseph) and Ana-Lucia’s accidental shooting of one of the regular Fuselage survivors, Shannon Rutherford (Maggie Grace). ”The Other 48 Days” unfolded the events experienced by the Tailies that led Ana-Lucia to pull the trigger in such haste. And one of those events included the death of a Canadian-born passenger named Nathan (Josh Randall) at the hands of the Others’ spy, Goodwin Stanhope (Brett Cullen), The ironic thing about Nathan’s death is that when this episode had first aired, many of the series’ fans blamed Ana-Lucia for the Canadian’s fate.

When Flight 815 of Oceanic Airlines had first crashed on September 22, 2004, the plane broke into several pieces. One of those pieces included the tail section, which landed in the water, somewhere opposite of the Fuselage passengers’ camp. Not long after the survivors swam ashore, some of them – Ana-Lucia Cortez, Mr. Eko (Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje), Libby (Cynthia Watros) and Others spy Goodwin included – helped the others. But after Tail Sections passengers (aka the Tailies) settled down for the night, the Others snatched three adult males and Eko managed to kill two of them with a rock when they try to take him. It was Nathan who pointed out the disappearance of the three male survivors. Several injured survivors die in the passing days before the Others attacked again on the twelfth night and snatched nine more survivors – including two children named Emma and Zack. Ana-Lucia managed to kill one of the Others. The remaining survivors – Ana-Lucia, Mr. Eko, Libby, Cindy, Nathan and Bernard Nadler (Sam Anderson) – and Goodwin head into the jungle to evade the Others.

During their trek into the jungle, Nathan peevishly insisted that they break for rest and water. Although against the idea, Ana-Lucia obliged due to the arguments from the other survivors. She eventually dug a pit – on her own – and converted it into a cage. For Nathan. Apparently, Ana-Lucia had developed a suspicion toward the Canadian-born survivor since the Others’ second attack. Along with Cindy, he wanted to stay on the beach, following the Others’ first attack on Day One. Nathan also lengthy trips into the jungle, supposedly to take a bathroom break. He also seemed rebellious toward Ana-Lucia. Nathan spent four days in the pit without food, despite protests from Bernard and Goodwin. He also had to endure unrelenting questioning by Ana-Lucia. When she indicated her intention to torture him, Goodwin helped Nathan out of the pit. Then he killed the Canadian by snapping the latter’s neck.

Ever since Nathan’s death, many fans – but not all – have dumped most of the blame on Ana-Lucia’s shoulders. In the Television Without Pity recap for”The Other 48 Days”, someone named Daniel had this to say:

”She kneels by a stream, and starts to break down. Who says Michelle Rodriguez can’t act? She stops herself when she sees Eko standing there watching her. She barks at him, for no one must see her cry. He tells her that everything’s going to be okay, and he crouches beside her. “What, you’re talking now?” he says. “It’s been forty days,” he says simply. “You waited forty days to talk?” she says. “You waited forty days to cry,” he says, and that totally sets her off, and she collapses, sobbing in his arms. I’m going to hope that the tears aren’t strictly of the “even a girlfighter needs to let it out once in a while” variety, and that some of these tears are being shed for Nathan, whose death Ana-Lucia bears some of the responsibility for, whether you like her or not.”

He was right to claim that Ana-Lucia bore some of the responsibility for Nathan’s death. I only wished he had included the others who were also responsible in the above passage. Even one of the series’ screenwriters got into the act. Both Elizabeth Sarnoff and Christina M. Kim, who wrote (2.16) ”The Whole Truth” had Ana-Lucia assume all of the blame for what happened to Nathan:

GALE: I don’t mean to be ungrateful, but why are you going to help me get out of here?
ANA: On the other side of the Island there was this guy with us. I was 100 percent convinced that he wasn’t on the plane. So I dug a whole and I threw him in it.
GALE: And what happened?
ANA: I was wrong. And now he’s dead. But good news for you Henry — I don’t make the same mistake twice. So how about you tell me your story?

Well, it is all peachy keen that Ana-Lucia was able to accept responsibility for Nathan’s death. But it would have been sweeter for me if the other Tailies had accepted responsibility on screen, as well. Yes, I am saying that the other Tailies – along with Goodwin – were responsible. Let us exam how each individual in that group was responsible:

*Nathan – You read it right. I believe that Nathan was partially responsible for his own death. I realize that he had spoken the truth that intestinal problems led him to disappear from the Tailies’ camp every few hours. But Nathan had been the one who first noticed that the Others had kidnapped three survivors on that first night. He should have realized that disappearing into the jungle by himself for several hours – for whatever the reason – was a stupid move. The Others’ attack on the first night would have convinced me to overcome any embarrassment and insist upon company so that I could groan and fart for two hours with some semblance of safety. And there was the problem of Nathan’s personality. Not only did he have an ornery personality that irritated Ana-Lucia and the other Tailies, he also had a secretive nature that aroused many suspicions amongst his companions.

*Ana-Lucia Cortez – As I had stated earlier, Ana-Lucia was partially responsible for Nathan’s death. She was the one who had dug the pit. She was the one who dumped Nathan into the pit, starved him and questioned him constantly. She also threatened to torture him. And although Nathan’s behavior failed to help his cause, I suspect that Ana-Lucia’s own dislike of him allowed her to easily believe that he was a spy for the Others.

*Bernard Nadler – Although Bernard had protested against Nathan being dumped and kept in that pit, he did nothing to help the latter escape. Despite knowing that Ana-Lucia was attempting to starve Nathan into confessing.

*Libby – Like Ana-Lucia, she disliked Nathan’s behavior. And she had expressed her distrust of Nathan before Ana-Lucia had finished digging the pit:

LIBBY [entering]: Hey.
ANA: Hey.
LIBBY: Back at the beach — the night they came back — you said that Nathan was gone for 2 hours? That he was missing? Creeps me out, Ana. Do you really think it’s possible that one of us is one of them?

Later, she responded to Goodwin’s protest:

GOODWIN: You’re not all serious.
LIBBY: He never talks about himself, Nathan. Every time I ask him anything, he just dodges.

You know what really irritated me about Libby in the end? She dumped all of the blame for Nathan’s death on Ana-Lucia in (2.08) ”Collision”:

ANA [to Libby]: What about you?
LIBBY: I just don’t think you’re the best judge of character. I was with you when you put Nathan in the pit.

That is correct. Not only was she there when Ana-Lucia dumped Nathan’s ass into that pit, she was one of those who had supported the act. Her hypocrisy toward Ana-Lucia really annoyed me.

* Cindy Chandler – Like Libby, Cindy expressed distrust of Nathan. She also claimed that she had never seen him on board Flight 815 before the crash – despite her gift for knowing faces:

ANA: We were in the air for 2 hours — I didn’t see him once — not once.
GOODWIN: It’s a big plane, Ana, just because you didn’t…
CINDY: No, I didn’t see him either. I’m pretty good with faces, you know, with the passengers, and I did not see him.

I believe that Cindy may have overestimated her talent for faces. Apparently, she had failed to spot Nathan before spent time in one of the plane’s restrooms, dealing with his “problem”. And she failed to realize that Goodwin had never been a passenger on Flight 815.

*Mr. Eko – He was kind enough to feed a banana to Nathan, while the latter was being deliberately starved by Ana-Lucia. And yet . . . he did not bother to free Nathan from the pit. One could argue that Mr. Eko had feared incurring Ana-Lucia’s wrath. But we all know that he was the last person on that island who could ever be intimidated by her. Like most of his companions, Mr. Eko probably harbored suspicions about Nathan.

*Goodwin Stanhope – Naturally, he is the main person to blame for Nathan’s death. After all, he snapped the other man’s neck. Goodwin had helped Nathan escape from the pit. He realized that if Ana-Lucia had tortured the other man, she would have realized that Nathan had been speaking the truth. As a spy for the Others, he could not afford for her to continue any suspicions. But . . . there had been no need for Goodwin to commit murder. He could have simply allowed Nathan to maintain his distance from the other Tailies. But he chose murder instead.

From the above statements, it is easy to see that I have managed to place the blame for Nathan’s death on just about every member of the group that had left the beach, following the Others’ second attack. Yet, because Ana-Lucia happened to be so unpopular with many fans of “LOST”, she has received most of the blame. I hope this will finally set the record straight.

“TOMORROWLAND” (2015) Review

“TOMORROWLAND” (2015) Review

Back in May 2015, the Disney Studios released a movie that did not proved to be successful at the box office. Directed by Brad Bird, the movie got its title – “TOMORROWLAND” – from futuristic themed land found at Disney theme parks.

It is a pity that “TOMORROWLAND” did not prove to be as successful as the Disney Studios had hoped. It struck me as a very unusual film. Superficially, it is a family friendly movie about a disillusioned genius inventor and a teenage science enthusiast, who embark upon a journey to an ambiguous dimension known as “Tomorrowland”, where they believe their actions can directly affect both the world and themselves. On another level, “TOMORROWLAND” produced an emotional reaction within me that truly took a cynical person like myself, by surprise.

The story begins with the adult Frank Walker telling an off-screen audience about when he had attended the 1964-1965 New York Fair as a child, and his attempt to present the jet pack he had invented to be used as an exhibit at the Fair. When his jet pack is rejected by a man named David Nix, young Frank is approached by a girl named Athena, who sees great potential within him. Athena gives Frank a pin with a “T” symbol and instructs him to follow her aboard the new It’s a Small World” attraction, created by Walt Disney’s engineers for his Disneyland theme park. Frank follows Athena, Nix and a group of other people and ends up transported to the futuristic cityscape, “Tomorrowland”, when his pin is scanned.

At this point, the narration shifts to the adolescent Casey Newton, the daughter of a Cape Canaveral engineer, who tries to sabotage the machines that are dismantling the NASA launch pad in order to save her dad’s job. at who sneaks into a decommissioned NASA launch pad in Cape Canaveral, where her father Eddie is an engineer. After one attempt at sabotage, Casey returns home, where Athena sneaks another “T” pin that is programmed to Casey’s DNA into the latter’s motorcycle helmet. The next night, Casey attempts to break into the NASA compound again, but is arrested. At the police station, Casey not only discovers the pin among her personal items, she also discovers that upon contact, the pin instantly shows her a view of “Tomorrowland”. Determined to find the origin of the pin, Casey traces it to a Houston memorabilia store that is owned by a couple that proves to be robots, who attack her. Athena, who also proves to be an Audio-Animatronic robot, rescues Casey and takes her to Frank’s farm in New York. She also tells Casey that the latter and Frank are needed to save the world. And the only way to do that is to head for Tomorrowland.

From a technical point-of-view, “TOMORROWLAND” is a very attractive looking movie. First of all, I have to applaud Scott Chambliss’ production designs for the film. His re-creation of the 1964-1965 New York New York’s World Fair in Flushing Meadows, New York really impressed me. It must have been difficult to re-create not only the event’s physical look, but also the mid-1960s. Then Chambliss went a step further and created the sleek, futuristic look of “Tomorrowland”. If his work does not earn an Academy Award nomination, I will be very surprised. And yes, other members of the crew contributed to Miranda’s production designs. I thought the work of the art direction team, Lin MacDonald’s set decorations, Jeffrey Kurland’s costume designs and especially Claudio Miranda’s sharp and colorful photography truly enhanced the movie’s style and look. I only have one problem – namely Michael Giacchino’s score. Quite honestly, I did not find it memorable.

The movie can also boast some excellent performances. George Clooney was at top form as the adult Frank Walker, who had become weary and cynical after being rejected from “Tomorrowland”. I cannot recall the last time I saw Hugh Laurie in a motion picture. But he was superb as the cool and judgmental leader of “Tomorrowland”, David Nix. I especially enjoyed his performance in the scene in which his character went into a rant over humanity’s foibles. I was surprised to learn that Britt Robertson is 25 years-old. She did an excellent job in portraying a character who seemed to be at least a decade younger. More importantly, she managed to develop a strong screen chemistry with both Clooney and the young actress who portrayed Athena, namely Raffey Cassidy. The latter gave a first-rate performance as the long-living android, who managed to develop some kind of affection toward both Casey and especially Frank. Thomas Robinson was superb as the young Frank. Not only did he have great chemistry with Cassidy, he managed to give an intelligent performance without coming off as an adult in a boy’s body. I also enjoyed the performances of Keegan-Michael Key (of “KEY AND PEELE”) and Kathryn Hahn as the pair of android managers of the Houston memorabilia store, who proved to be both funny and rather scary.

For the likes of me, I tried to understand why this movie had produced so much hostility from the critics and from some moviegoers. In the end, I decided it would be a waste of my time. I cannot control the opinions of others. And quite frankly, I have no desire to do so. I find such efforts rather frustrating and exhausting. All I can do is express my feelings of the movie. Personally? I rather liked it.  “TOMORROWLAND” is such an oddball of a film. Superficially, it struck me as one of those solid Disney family actions films that the studio had been making for the past 60 years or so. But once Frank and Casey reached “Tomorrowland”, the film shifted into a tone that made it quite unique and in the end, I found rather touching. How touching did I find it? Let me put it this way . . . I found myself crying when the movie ended.

I am certain that many who did not like the film would say that I cried over how much of a mess it turned out to be. Perhaps these same fans and critics did not like the shift of tone in the movie’s last half hour or so. I must confess . . . I had a bit of trouble with that shift, myself. Or perhaps they disliked Nix’s rant . . . or the fact that it revealed a great deal of truth about humanity. Nix’s rant made me acknowledge the negative aspects of humanity, something that I tend to complain about to this day. But as George Clooney’s character managed to point out, not all is negative about humanity. Sometimes, we humans can surprise each other in a positive way. Did other moviegoers and critics come to this conclusion? Or did they expect some kind of one-dimensional “good-vs.-evil” conflict that can usually be found in many summer films? Perhaps I should not dwell upon what the audience wanted and focus on my reaction of“TOMORROWLAND”. After all, my opinion should count . . . at least to me.

There is another aspect of the film that I had carried away with me upon leaving the movie theater. I noticed that following Frank’s expulsion by the character Nix and the latter’s intent to ensure the cityscape’s separation from Earth, the dimension known as “Tomorrowland” declined as a community. This outcome reminded me of what seems to me is the decline of today’s culture and originality. Many societies today seem so bent upon either remembering the past (through rose-colored glasses) or rejecting anything remotely original that I find myself wondering if the same happened to “Tomorrowland”, when Nix had decided to close itself off from Earth and the innovations of humans when he discovered the possibility of a worldwide catastrophe. Perhaps that last scene of Frank and Casey entrusting “Tomorrowland” androids (to whom they had been narrating this story) to recruit new “dreamers” from Earth and bring them to “Tomorrowland” is what drove me to tears when I left the theater.

Once again, I found myself encountering another original film that very few seem capable of appreciating or enjoying. I only hope that director Brad Bird and co-screenwriter Damon Lindelof are aware there are some people – including myself – who truly appreciated their creation of “TOMORROWLAND”, along with the cast and crew who worked on this film.