Academy Award Prediction: Best Picture and Best Director of 2005

BEST PICTURE
BEST DIRECTOR

(For the first time that I can remember, all five films nominated for Best Picture also have their directors nominated.)

*Summary*

Brokeback Mountain (3/4 stars): Fairly ordinary romance film with competent performances from Jake Gyllehaal and the surprising Heath Ledger. Strong directing effort from Ang Lee. Overhyped because the protagonists are two cowboys.

Crash (3.5/4 stars): Interesting kinetic ensemble film. Spectacular direction from Paul Haggis, but not a memorable film overall due to lack of focus and Crash's nature as a "statement film" on racism.

Munich (4/4 stars): Stupendous performance by Eric Bana and magnificent direction by Spielberg.

Good Night. And, Good Luck. (3/4 stars): Well-made docu-cinema with an excellent performance from David Straithairn and surprisingly effective direction from George Clooney.

Capote (3/4 stars): A role-of-a-lifetime performance from Philip Seymour Hoffman. The film itself is not a huge magnitude better than average. Pacing problems from director Bennett Miller.

Bottom Line: This is an acceptable field, but it's not a strong one. I can only identify Munich and Good Night. And, Good Luck as two films that would contend for a nomination in any year of recent memory. The other three barely qualify as being the best film of any year.

Who will win?
Sadly, the Brokeback Bandwagon is overflowing with people who've never seen a gay romance film. Brokeback Mountain wins an undeserved Academy Award for Best Picture. This bandwagon will also likely tow Ang Lee to the plum directing prize.

Who should win?
Munich stands head and shoulders above all the other films in this field. This also means that the Academy pariah Steven Spielberg should take home the statuette. Not going to happen either way.

Bennett Miller's Capote (3/4 stars)

I like to tag the small group of actors that I consider Philip Seymour Hoffman to be a part of as "specially talented and criminally underused." I don't think the likes of William H. Macy, Ed Norton, Don Cheadle and John C. Reilly are underrated. Many people who enjoy movies won't recognize their names, but when you mention a character they've played in a memorable film, they'll say "oh yeah that guy he was great!!!'

These actors will rarely get a chance to lead a film because they don't have the "look" that Hollywood prizes so much. You know, the Cruise, Pitt, and even Keanu "look" (the last one being criminal, but whatever). They also don't have the Pacino/DeNiro/Hopkins-class screen presence that can make up for any lack of smashing good looks.

I think the two poster boys for success for these guys is Kevin Spacey, who was in this class himself until the breakout in The Usual Suspects. Now, Hoffman attempts to join him with a breakout of his own.

I'm considering Phil a mortal lock for the Academy Award. I've seen four of the five performances (excepting Terence Howard - I have no interest in his film) and Hoffman stands head and shoulders above the competition. Perhaps I'm biased, having seen many of his brilliant roles, big and small, go unnoticed. It's about time he got some glory. His Truman Capote is everything the man was reputed to be. Hoffman made me want to smack Truman around until I could understand what he was saying half the time.

What I find inexplicable is how Capote snuck into the nominee list for Best Picture. Sure, Hoffman put the production on his back and carried it into the spotlight, but it's not a remarkable effort for director Bennett Miller. He frames the story of how In Cold Blood was written competently, keeping the spotlight firmly focused on Capote and his inner demons that spawned during the writing of the landmark novel. However, his pacing could have been more even. There are times during the film that things move too deliberately. And I'm not giving him ANY credit for Phil's peformance. Sorry Bennett. Keener is ok as Harper Lee, Truman's partner in literary history (some say Capote actually wrote Lee's landmark To Kill a Mockingbird). However, there is no romance as Capote was gay.

Bottom Line: You have to see this for Hoffman's performance. However, have some patience due to the uneven pacing.

Next: A few more films with Oscar nominations. I hope to get through Walk the Line, Syriana, The Constant Gardener, Proof, Pride and Prejudice. Memoirs of a Geisha and *maybe* The New World before the Academy comes calling.

Dave McKean's Mirrormask (2/4 stars)

(Capote is coming up. Just a break because this was viewed, unscheduled, in place of game night.)



Neil Gaiman is my favorite fantasy author. His fantasy tends towards the dark and fantastic, or towards the real world with something just off. I've read most of his works; people are most familiar with his Sandman graphic novels or with his recent bestselling book American Gods. Neil also dabbles in screenwriting.

Dave McKean, the graphic artist, is a longtime collaorator of Neil. His work is... strange. He works in multiple media to create works that are just as off in terms of visual impact, as Neil's works tend to be off in terms of ideas and concepts. They complement each other very well in the published medium.

So. When word reached their fans that they were working on a film project, there was quite a bit of excitement. The budget wasn't big, and the film wasn't meant to be a Hollywood summer blockbuster, but even small art house runs were greatly anticipated by fans. They collaborated on the screenplay, and Dave took the director's chair.

The greatest success of Mirrormask is the near-perfect translation of Dave McKean's visual style to film. Everything from the dark reds, oranges, yellows and browns he tends to use, to the strangeness, to the twisted analogs of real-world things. The transition is spectacular, if a bit disturbing. If you like looking at these kinds of interesting imagery, you'll have a lot to see.

Unfortunately, what Dave doesn't quite get done is a proper application of film elements to the storytelling. Mirrormask is essentially a buddy road trip. The main character, Helena, is trapped in a fantasy world of her own making and needs to quest to rights a wrong and escape back to her world. Her sidekick is Valentine. Think C3PO with less poise and intellect.

The story is pretty simple. Since it's Gaiman, there are a few twists, but nothing you can't wrap your head around. The problem is in the actors and the pacing. Stephanie Leonidas is a reasonably-experienced 20-year old actress, but McKean gets very little from her emotion-wise. She's unable to project, and the result is an audience that is less-than-invested in her as a character. This is an even bigger problem because Helena's main trait that sets her off from the denizens of the fantasy world is her expressive face. Everyone else wears a mask. She might as well be wearing one too for the most part.

The story's pacing also leaves much to be desired. I know that Dave's visuals are a huge part of the film, but editing Mirromask into a properly-paced film must take precedence. It didn't, and you have a story that's unable to hold the interest of viewers as the characters skitter back and forth. The pretty pictures can only take you so far.

My favorite scene in a film that otherwise tested my patience was a very strange use of the Carpenter's standard "Close to You". If you see the film, I'll bet you'll find that bit at least noteworthy if not entertaining.

Bottom Line: I'm sure that Mirrormask has an audience, and will develop a cult following just because it looks so damned cool. However, I wouldn't watch it all the way through more than once without liberal use of fast forward. If you're a fan of Gaiman and/or McKean though, it's required viewing.

George Clooney's Good Night, and Good Luck (3.5/4 stars)

The first George Clooney-directed film I got to see was the underscreened "Confessions of a Dangerous Mind". George did a decent job on that film, and the influence of his budd Steven Soderbergh showed in the film's style. In his current effort, Good Night, and Good Luck, George takes off on a completely different tangent. While some elements of the film still retain the gritty Soderberghian style, he elects to use a docudrama slant. He even goes to the extent of filming in black and white.

It's a great call, and it works extremely well.

In this telling of the events surrounding television journalist Ed Murrow's media battle with US Senator Joe McCarthy in the dark days of the Communist witchhunt, Clooney's choice of using stock footage of the real McCarthy rather than casting an actor is a gutsy call. Writing the screenplay around these snippets of historical footage, David Straithairn's Murrow is given the real thing to play against. It enhances the realism of the film and sucks you into the struggle.

Speaking of Straithairn, the role is essayed as a hardboiled, steadfast freedom-loving American. It's not a HUGE role, as the screenplay sticks completely to the story of the McCarthy conflict and does not touch at all on Murrow. This deprives the viewer from being able to invest in Ed as a person since we are not presented much beyond the straightlaced, stonefaced television journalist. Even when a close friend and associate dies, we are not given a window into how Murrow copes with the loss, or even the pressures of his job. He comes across as larger than life. This is the main weakness of the film.

Good Night, and Good Luck comes in with a running time of less than two hours. It can be argued that they might have invested some time in showing us more about Murrow. Ultimately, Cloney decided that the film is about the conflict, and is not about the character. Too bad, because putting in 20 minutes more of character backstory for Murrow would have, to my mind, made the film better.

Bottom Line: Overall, Good Night, and Good Luck is an excellent film and well worth the time. This is my dark horse for the 2005 Best Film Academy Award.

Paul Haggis's Crash (3/4 stars)

Crash opens with a complicated concept - people in LA avoid each other reflexively so you've gotta crash into someone else to touch them - but in reality the message is simple. The world has become a place where it's easy to find something to be afraid of - other people who are different. The media has turned everyone into the stereotype of their race and culture and even appearance.

People have to remember that each person is a unique individual capable of good things as well as bad. Sadly, that's easily forgotten when you're afraid.

The ensemble cast might be described as "powerhouse" with a prodigious number of recognizable names and faces - Sandy Bullock, Brendan Fraser, Matt Dillon, Thandie Newton, Loretta Devine, Ryan Philippe and Don Cheadle who also produced. There are so many characters that while the ability of director Paul Haggis to weave an effective tapestry of intersecting stories is impressive, the audience isn't able to latch on to anyone. In the film's 100 minutes, I saw snapshots of the lives of many people, but I didn't get to know any of them. Thus, I really didn't care much when bad stuff happened to them.

Crash attempts to sell an idea instead of tell a story. Haggis succeeds at driving home how media characterization of ethnicities has changed society. (Sorry, I'm not using the "r" word because it's loaded with so much baggage that it doesn't convey the correct idea anymore.) But he doesn't succeed in crafting a film that involves the audience. We're spectators to a wonderful show, not participants in a story who emotionally invest in a character. For the kind of film that Crash attempts to be, it falls a bit short of greatness.

So. While it's certainly worth your 100 minutes, Crash isn't in my book a contender for the best film of 2005. The Oscar still rests on the mantle of Munich.

Bottom Line: Very good, see it.

Steven Spielberg's Munich (4/4 stars)

Eric Bana was robbed.

And Mr. Spielberg? You're forgiven for War of the Worlds.

I'm yet to see two of the other three nominees (Crash up next), and I will before the awards are handed out, but dammit Munich is the best film of 2005.

This is how you take a moral drama and fold it into a kinetic action film. You watch the characters and you know how they're doing it and maybe WHY they're doing it, but you're not quite sure if THEY know what they're doing and why they're doing it.

Steven also controls his natural urge to grab an idea and hit his audience over the head with it until they cry. I was concerned when the epilogue began to drag a bit, but the final scene ended with the proper amount of uncertainty for the tone of the film. You don't know what happens. You know what YOU want to happen, and you know what is LIKELY to happen, God forbid, but Steven doesn't tell us what exactly happens.

Eric Bana should have gotten a nom for lead actor. Strong, rock steady performance of a man whose moral compass gets caught in a magnetic storm. He's got a port, but will the storm overwhelm the port? Is he in control? Was he ever in control?

The debate over Steven's treatment of terrorism and the "dialogue" of violent acts between the Israelis and Palestinians was not just handled well, it wasn't handled at all, which is important. Steve's a Jew, so we all know where Steve stands. It's irrelevant for Munich. This is just a story, and I did not detect anything in the way of an overt message. When you become as your opponent, you cede the moral high ground, and wrong and right all swirl into one really large pool of blood.

Bottom Line: Best Film of 2005. Do NOT miss it.

Ang Lee's Brokeback Mountain (3/4 stars)

What's the big deal over Brokeback Mountain?

It's competently directed by Ang Lee. But it's Ang Lee, so we expect that.

It's got some competent performances. Heath Ledger sheds the last vestiges of the cringeworthy A Knight's Tale and shows that he belongs on the big screen. Jake Gyllenhaal proves that he can also act. He's still not as good as his sister Maggie, but he's improved a lot since Donnie Darko. Michelle Williams doesn't do enough here despite the charged minutes she gets in front of the camera. Anne Hathaway somehow blundered into this film, again by showing us her breasts.

Why is there so much hype?

Look, this is a drama/romance with longing as the central theme. They can't be together, and the feelings that Ennis and Jack have for each other prove to be their undoing in the end. I can name at least four films with a similar theme that, in my mind, are significantly better: The Remains of the Day, In the Mood for Love and its sequel 2046, and The Bridges of Madison Country. You want to give Brokeback the Oscar? No way. And I LIKE Ang Lee's work.

The problem here is that people are uncomfortable with the film. They can't ignore it because it's got a high-profile director and cast, and it's got two big outfits backing it (Focus and Paramount), so they overcompensate. Brokeback Mountain is a WELL-CRAFTED tragic love story, but the best film of the year it's not. By a LONG shot.

Bottom Line: See it, but keep your expectations low. It's not THAT great.

Ronny Yu's Huo Yuan Jia (aka Fearless) (2.5/4 stars)

I saw this film after some of the other that follow, but I'm going for a series of Academy Awards nominees so I'll put this one up first. You're going to have to wait a bit for my take on Brokeback Mountain. :)



This is reputedly going to be Jet Li's final film.

Strange that he decided to go with a project headed by a guy who directed the hits "Bride of Chucky" and "Freddy vs. Jason".

Regardless, this is as always Li's film. It's not as pretty as Ying Xiong, or Hero to English-speaking audiences. It's also not as well-directed. However, the energy that Li puts into his scenes show little decline from his landmark Once Upon a Time in China series. Wushu is a martial art that's fun to watch, and combined with the wire-fu tricks that have now become standard even in Hollywood, Huo Yuan Jia is entertaining for the length of its running time.

Scuttlebutt has it that the original director's cut was 2.5 hours, and they whittled it down to 100 minutes for non-Chinese audiences who apparently can't tolerate that much "kung fu" in one sitting. It's laughable if true, considering that Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon clocked in just over 2 hours.

Bottom Line: It's Jet Li, and it's wushu in what's billed as his final outing. Catch it just for old times' sake.

Inflight Viewing: Bad News Bears (1.5/4 stars) and The Perfect Man (0.5/4 stars)

So I was stuck on Thai Air because it had the only sensible flights to Bangkok from Manila. No, we didn't get personal screens (Sing Air has me spoiled) but I still ended up watching the inflight offering both ways. Not what I would have picked given a decent selection, but there was no selection.

I like Billy Bob, and he's fun in his drunken bastard mode. Unfortunately, he already did the definitive drunk bastard in Bad Santa, so Billy Morris Bob Buttermaker is less mean and cranky than Billy Santa Bob Claus. But he's still fun no matter what.

This is a formula "kids' team makes bad coach better, better coach makes team winner" movie, played out on a little league baseball diamond. They elect for the moral victory as the ending for this one. Director Rich Linklater toes the line between trying to make something of this and mailing it in, but in the end decides to just mail it in. He gets nothing from the kids, except maybe for first-timer spitfire Sammi Kane Kraft as the team's girl pitcher (probably because she really IS a pitcher). I guess working with Julie Delpy and Ethan Hawke all the time spoils you.

Bottom Line: Watch it to see drunken bastard Billy Bob, but if you've seen Bad Santa, then you're not missing anything.



Gaaak a Hilary Duff film. At least it's got a semblace of a rom-com, so I hoped that the film isn't all about the Duff.

Sadly, it was all about the Duff.

In this trainwreck, Duff attempts to steer her relationship-impaired mom (Heather Locklear, looking not a day over 40) away from guys she considers less-than-perfect. She does this by creating a "Perfect Man" out of thin air, using the opinions of hunky-but-apparently-engaged Chris "Mr. Big" Noth.

It's not funny, it's not romantic, and it's simply not entertaining.

Bottom Line: Pass. Please.

Michael Winterbottom's 9 Songs (1.5/4 stars)

I really hesitated before deciding to view this film, mostly because I was sure I was going to hate it. For one, the music that Mike Winterbottom's controversial 9 Songs is built around isn't my cup of tea. However, since it's controversial, I gave it a whirl.

For one, 9 Songs is short. About half of the film is footage of live band performances. The other half has the lead characters Matt and Lisa having sex in various situations.

Look, I get what Winterbottom was aiming for. There's almost no dialogue in the film. The emotions of the characters are drawn from the music and the sex. Their relationship is built on the same thing. It's as if he's challenging the viewers to figure out how this worked at all, and how it went wrong when it did go wrong.

Sadly due to the sex scenes no one really cares about the message. Ramp model Margot Stilley makes her feature film debut by baring everything to Winterbottom's digital camera. Male lead Kieran O'Brien does the same thing, including providing what's known as a "money shot" in porn.

Oh, that's where it all is. Is this porn?

Nah.

Porn is created explicitly to sexually excite. That wasn't the purpose here. Winterbottom was attempting to tell his story with two activities that are part of the real lives of people like Matt and Lisa. They're out there. This is them. But since so many people don't think Margot Stilley should have shown her vagina in a feature film, that's all overlooked and what people remember is oh god he stuck his cock in her pussy in full view of the camera what a scandal.

Bottom Line: I still didn't *like* the film, but that doesn't mean it's pornography or that it's worthless. If you're of the same age as the characters and like that kind of music (cmon we all like sex) then it's likely that 9 Songs will connect with you.

Steven Spielberg's War of the Worlds (1.5/4 stars)

Steven Spielberg. Tom Cruise. Dakota Fanning.

Star Power.

Okay, so Tom's one filament short of a lightbulb, but that doesn't mean you don't expect big things from those three names.

Look. Spielberg's the man. Saving Private Ryan, Schindler's List, Amistad and Minority Report give him the leeway to make the gigantic crapola that was AI. He spun his wheels for a while with the relatively quiet and competent efforts in The Terminal and Catch Me If You Can (at least as quiet as films headlined by Hanks and DiCaprio can be).

Dakota's a kid, so I'll assume she listens to her handlers so she can be absolved.

War of the Worlds is a huge letdown. Not just because we were expecting a huge fight between US and THEM. Not just because we wanted to see MEN spank the MARTIANS. It was because we were looking for a sci-fi spectacular, and what we got was a half-baked family drama from a guy that really shouldn't be doing a family drama. (Jerry Maguire was clearly a fluke, or it was all Cameron Crowe.) My reaction at the end was: What. The. Fuck. You climax is James Earl Jones telling you we won.

Unacceptable.

Bottom Line: You'd better have a big one next time out Mr. Spielberg, because this one didn't cut it. If you miss it, you didn't miss much.

David Mackenzie's Young Adam (2.5/4 stars)

Young Adam is a very strange film. It's a slow burn, reverse-but-not-really film where we follow a guy who might be mixed up in a murder but we don't really know why or how. And there's lots of sex.

Ewan Macgregor is sort of like Johnny Depp Lite. He does the mainstream stuff that we all love and know and enjoy - Star Wars, Moulin Rouge, Down with Love, The Island (ok that's pushing it) - but he also does these strange indie-type films where we gets to brood and act silly and show us his willy. In this one, it's a one-man road trip with lots of fucking and slow unraveling of the strands surrounding the aforementioned mysterious murder.

Some may find the going slow and tedious. I've sat through Solyaris, and I love 2001. Young Adam is pretty good for what it wants to be.

Bottom Line: Recommended for patient viewers with an eye (and ear) for detail, and who don't mind seeing other peoples' privates.

Barbara Kopple's Havoc (0.5/4 stars)

When your first "grown up" film is released direct to video, you probably made a terrible mistake in picking a vehicle to launch your "new" career.

Anne Hathaway was a Disney Princess, about a step down from Queen Hilary Duff. The Princess Diaries was a decent "hit" for the Mouse House (I use the term hit loosely here), enough to warrant a sequel. Her other "name" film, Ella Enchanted, could easily have been a Disney project (it wasn't, but was distributed by Disney house Buena Vista in some parts of the world).

Anyway, Princess Anne decided that she had enough of the saccharine roles, so she picked a big girl's role. Unfortunately for her, Havoc is a turd of a project. Anne's role is sort of a mirror image of herself, a young woman looking to grow up too fast. Along with her sidekick, Played by random blonde Bijou Philips, they embark on a quest to find fulfilment in dangerous places, situations and company.

Yes, not very inspiring or interesting. To top it all off, Princess Anne bares her bosom in the name of art. Wonder how Havoc became a hot item on the net? Yep. The formerly-royal boobs of Anne Hathaway.



Anne, girl, I know that both Alyssa Milano and Drew Barrymore survived errors of judgment like this early in their careers, but it's not a formula for success. Get some sense, put on some clothes, find a new makeup artist, and you just might make it in Hollywood without having to show us what your panties are hiding.

Bottom Line: Find the internet clip of Anne's "star turn". Otherwise, give it a wide berth.

Michael Bay's The Island (2/4 stars)

Yes, it's Michael Bay, and I'm giving his film 2 stars. The Island has been universally panned, especially in sci fi circles, as a joke. Everyone points at Bay's track record, which includes the just-as-universally panned Armageddon. Hey, Armageddon is ok in my book (I'd give it 2 to 2.5 stars) and The Island isn't awful.

Well, ok, the dialogue is awful, but you're not expecting Tarantino from Mike Bay.

Ewan is ok, but Ewan is a pretty decent actor. The attraction here (as it is in any of her recent films) is Scarlett. No, she doesn't get much character to work with, but at least she gets to run around for a change. Too many dramas make Scarlett a dull girl to watch.



Bottom Line: It's not Aliens. It's not Die Hard. But it's decent mindless fun, and it's got Scarlett.

Even More Heroes: Hellboy (3/4 stars) and Sky High (3/4 stars)

This installment, we look at a couple of contrasting supers films.



Hellboy is an interesting superhero tale, just as its lead character isn't your usual guy in tights. I've no experience with the comic the film is based on, but I've heard good things. Director Guillermo del Toro comes up with something halfway between Spider-Man and Batman - it's not full on with the camp, but neither does it pass on the human elements.

Ron Perlman is a personal favorite when a role calls for a lot of prosthetics. I grew up on the small screen live action Beauty and the Beast, where Ron defined the role for me. He brings Hellboy to life, and gives him that streak of humanity that makes his resistance to his nature as the Son of Satan credible. Most of the other characters form the backdrop against which Hellboy is painted. Many are interesting, but none are as full-formed as you might like.

The story has decent pacing, slowing down for character sets then speeding up for the action. Speaking of the action, the CGI is competent, and the dark, gritty setting fits the overall feel of the movie.

Bottom Line: Thumbs up, an entertaining romp well worth seeing.



Our other film of the day, Sky High, is the other side of the coin that Hellboy graces. This is a full-on fun film, a superhero take on the regular teens-in-school growing up and proving themselves template. The writers (there are three of them credited, indicating a degree of rewrite) got the tone right. Have fun, but there are real world parallels here. It's almost like The Incredibles in live action. Sort of.

The issues? The need to live up to famous parents, the need to fit in at school, cliques, identity, dealing with judgment on your potential... I'm sure there's more. The ensemble cast does a good job, but credit director Mike Mitchell and whoever his editor was with keeping the whole thing moving at a good clip.

The kids with the lead roles are pretty good, but Bruce Campbell steals the show with his take as Sky High's answer to Hogwarts' Sorting Hat. His power of talking really loud fits Bruce, and he's damned funny as always.

Bottom Line: If you want 100 minutes of entertainment, you could do far worse than Sky High.

Into the Blue (0.5/4 stars)

Director John Stockwell has a plum job. His last directing credit was for another babes-in-bikinis flick, Blue Crush. Considering both films are pretty awful, a huge step down from the bad-but watchable Crazy/Beautiful, he must be doing these films for the girls.

And yes, I only watched this movie for Jessica. Yes, it was horrible. Yes, it was better when Jessica was on screen. Ashley Scott wasn't bad either, but the half star rating is entirely for this:



Bottom Line: Only for Jessica fans. Leave your brain at the door.

Bill Condon's Kinsey (3/4 stars)

I'm not a fan of biopics because they tend to be less than accurate. I know that a good film is supposed to be more about a good story than accuracy, but when it's a bio, you expect more. Now, I have no idea how accurate Kinsey is, but it is a well-told, decently-paced, thought-provoking film.

Sexuality is one of humanity's greatest bugbears. Across the world many people remain ignorant of truths about sexuality, whether it be due to ignorance or misinformation, the latter usually due to social or religious constraints. This for me is the main draw of Kinsey - for those unfamiliar with his works, it can open a line of thinking beyond what society will allow. The two works reference by the film were published in 1948 and 1953, but the ignorance persists in many reaches of the world.

Liam Neeson is his usual excellent self. The man is underrated as a thespian. Lauray Linney also turns in a fine performance. As mentioned, I like the pacing and the editing, though there are some loose ends. But as the film was pushing 2 hours, leaving those strands on the cutting room floor may have been for the best.

Bottom line: Well worth your time. Not for the prudish or closed mind.

The LOST Rant, Part I

WARNING: SPOILERS



Hurley is bummed because his story is going nowhere.

I think that's the biggest problem of LOST in its second season.

Ever since they introduced the second group of survivors, led by Michelle Rodriguez's tepid character Anna Lucia, the quality of the story has taken a really sharp nosedive. Right now, all it seems to have produced is the reunion of Rose with her husband. Okay, it's a nice little hook, but overall it has no impact on the story.

Every single storyline of the primary group of survivors is spinning its wheels and doing nothing productive, just like punching that number into the computer. Locke? Same Locke. Sayid? Same Sayid. We've hardly seen Jack, Kate and Shannon. The three guys with the second group, Jin, Michael and Sawyer, have had no development other than Mike's psychosis about his kid. Boring and overwrought. I don't particularly care about Charlie and Claire. And most criminally, we get nothing more about Hugo, who is the glue of the whole story. Very, very frustrating.

What should have been obvious to the writers of the show is that they were already pushing it with so many characters. It was an acheivement to get viewers to care about the first group. Now you add at least two more "major" characters in Anna Lucia and Eko? And you give them the lion's share of the first eight episodes of Season Two?

Way to kill any momentum from the first season.

Now with the three-week hiatus between episodes 9 and 10, I'm losing interest in the show bigtime. I still want to know more about the stories of Kate and especially Hugo, but after episode 9, I'm not hopeful.

(More to come)

Joss Whedon's Serenity (2.5/4 stars)

I decided to go ahead and see Serenity without having seen Firefly, just for a different perspective. It seems a lot of the people who have seen Firefly rave about Serenity - I wanted to see if the film worked for someone who knew nothing about the "verse" as it is called. Someone who isn't a "browncoat".

For the most part, the film works. The universe is interesting, the storytelling moves at a decent clip, and the story, while nothing new, is sufficiently engaging. Ok, it's not much better than a big Star Trek episode, but Whedon's dialogue, the element he hangs his hat on, is present in some places.

Serenity also carries the weaknesses of the genre - the ensemble cast prevents the film from sufficiently developing any real connection with any of them, and the actors aren't allowed enough time to grow their characters. Even the lead character, Malcolm, makes a jarring character transition driven by screentime constraints. The ending leaves the story open for a sequel, or course, but from current scuttlebutt that's not in the cars as Serenity didn't make enough at the box office to justify one.

The characters a reminiscent of a regular party from a roleplaying game - the rakish, strong-willed captain of the Serenity, Malcolm, the weapons master Jayne, the tech Kaylee, the two pilots (who are a couple) Wash and Zoe, and two newcomers to the ship who are the centerpiece of the story. One is the ship's doctor, Simon, and his sister, River. River is apparently a psychic/deadly weapon that Simon broke out of the "Alliance" facility that was housing her. The Alliance has dispatched an Operative to track her down, and this is the cat and mouse game that threads through the film.

As an aside, the three girls of Serenity range from interesting (Summer Glau, River) to cute (Jewel Staite, Kaylee) to pretty hot (Brazilian babe Monica Baccarin, Inara). At least they have that over Star Wars, as they all are quite a bit more attractive than Carrie Fisher, who never did anything for me despite the Jabba bikini.

Overall, Serenity will engage any sci fi fan for its 2-hour running time. It's not as great as its fans make it out to be, but it's still pretty decent considering the difficulty Whedon had getting it distributed. Well worth the watch, but don't go in with Star Wars-caliber expectations.

Earthsea (0.5/4 stars)

I plucked this off the bargain bin on name recognition. I've not had the pleasure of reading Ursula LeGuin's books set in Earthsea, but I was willing to gamble on the reputation of the work. What I didn't notice was that this was a Sci Fi Network made for TV movie, and that would have warned me on quality.

Simply, it's not good.

The film lacks tightness and focus. It jumps around all over the place so much so that viewers are unable to make a connection either with the story or with any of the characters. The two main characters, Ged and Tenar, meet face to face around two and a half hours into the film, which is pretty horrific. There's a lot of wandering around the place, which can bore one to death. But what truly brings Earthsea to a screeching halt is the endless exposition by practically every character. A lot of it is boring and pointless and could have been excised by writing the thing properly. Show me please, don't keep telling me.

There are a lot of other things to poke fun at, including awful CGI and horrific acting on the part of everyone except for the criminally misused Isabella Rossellini. But hey, I guess everyone has to earn a paycheck, so I won't hold it against her.

I'm writing this while the damned thing is still running in the background. Ged and Tenar are acting/talking about the plot yet again. Ehhhh. I'll go turn it off now.

Avoid this steaming turd. Please.