Lost

In a year that features the final episodes of the longest running action-espionage TV show ever (24), some of the best drama one can find (Mad Men) and a new HBO super-production from the team that brought us Band of Brothers (Pacific), it comes to nobody's surprise that none of the above are even close to the biggest event in TV or even entertainment. That is because 2010 features the most awaited-for finale since The Sopranos took its bow in 2007: ABC's Lost. So how does the show stack up, now that it's over? What was it all about, now that the black smoke has dissipated (give yourself a tap on the back if you got that reference)?

Lost was a show about an Island. The Island. It's the defining characteristic of the show at first glance, a place as interesting as it was mysterious, taking its place in pop culture ever since it came along. On The Island you could find whispers, polar bears, secrets, more dead bodies than many cemeteries, statues, boats, hatches, dynamite, guns, and airplanes. And so much more. You know, the good stuff. But this island was more than a trash can for crazy ideas that the producers thought up and threw in. This Island was full of people.


Lost was a show about characters. Living (mostly), believable, fascinating characters, that acted according to their principles (or lack thereof). Indeed, every one of them had motivation, an arc, a back-story, covering the entire range of human existence, from babies to men incredibly old, from priests to torturers, men of science and men of faith. Everyone acted as such for a reason. These characters often clashed, and when they did, it always proved to be something worth thinking about, from philosophy to the simple management of the group's resources post-crash.

Lost was a philosophical show. It encompassed themes from all major religions, touching on life and death, duality, fate, determinism, hope, revenge, and fulfillment. What other show merged its main characters with such themes by actually naming them after influential philosophers (Locke, Rousseau, Hume, to name a few)? Lost was never preachy in its web of motifs though, and the producers knew when to shift a gear when needed, and did so, resulting in some of the most intriguing action sequences on TV in the last decade.



Lost was a show about action. Things happened, fights broke out, explosions pulverized everything around them, people were shot, animals were hunted, glances were exchanged, and tears were shed. It always carried a feeling of importance, like it was the only thing that was worth seeing, like it was airing with purpose. One of the most important notions on the show was that everything happened for a reason. It never seemed too over the top, nor low-key, but rather just right as far as everything was concerned, from humor to seriousness.



Lost was a funny show. While no characters existed for pure comedic relief, some were funny as hell. From Sawyer's nicknames, to Hurley's sometimes geeky references, knowing how and especially when to insert a joke, mainly because something big was always going on in the background.


Lost was a sad show. Viewers cried their hearts out when it got really sad, and Lost had its fair share of sad moments during its six year run. This sadness is inherent to the show's hugely ambitious scope, with tragedies abounding on all levels, both cosmic and personal.



Lost was a show that was grandiose. Everything was exotic, from the sets on The Island, to Michael Giacchino's perfect music. Part of Lost's huge appeal was that one could not care about what actually happened, and still be awe-struck by some of the best cinematography and sound mixing ever seen or heard on TV.


Lost was a show about choice. For a show about choice, it's ironic that it gave you little to no choice to keep on watching episode after episode, season after season. Those who followed the show from the beginning were, of course, the most rewarded when "The End" finally came, but for a show so heavy in mythology, mysteries and questions, one could have jumped in anytime in the first two or three seasons. After that, it was a whole other ballgame. The choices the characters made were never left without repercussions, their stubbornness prevailing in the end, man preserving his power over the universe, through choice. "Don't tell me what I can't do" seems more than a catch-phrase, uttered when the writers had no idea what to do, but a guide they followed when writing it.

Lost was a fantastically written show. The writing on Lost has been the best of the last few years in television, without exception. Even on an off day, it was instantly quotable ("See you in another life,brother";"Go get Jack";"Others!"), and the immense number of quotes, slogans and mantras this show is going to generate gives me a headache just thinking about it. A few years from now, someone seeing Lost from the beginning will be greeted by the same familiarity that exists when one watches a classical movie for the first time. They'll know many lines, identify some original ideas before hand, and make the necessary connections easily, because so much of this show is universal. Which is not to say that Lost was predictable. The writers were only outdid by the actors as far as I'm concerned.


Lost was a perfectly acted show. Featuring a huge cast of over 14 main members (in the first season) and many more secondary ones, it boasts one of the most talented groups of actors ever brought on screen for such a long time in studio-years. Starting from stereotypical characters, the writers subverted all clichés.

Matthew Fox plays Jack, the young, handsome, doctor, who steps up (but not with his own accord) as leader for the survivors of flight 815,but has daddy issues, doubts, uncertainties and regrets.

Terry O'Quinn plays John Locke with the steadiness only a veteran can provide, presenting a human side to the stoic paraplegic who regains use of his legs after the crash.

Michael Emerson plays Ben Linus, in what might be the most underrated role and performance of the last decade. His quiet but menacing demeanor defines a man who always seems to know more than he lets on, balancing the truth with oh-so-many lies. Ben and Locke are formidable on-screen, and as much as they do appear, they always leave the viewer wanting for more.

The struggle between Locke (the man of faith) and Jack (the man of science) was the focal point of the series for its entire run, and the pay-off is as rewarding as it could have been. What about Sawyer, Kate, Desmond? Sayid, Jin, and Sun? No one skipped a beat in six years and it's too bad that awards have to single out performances because Lost was an acting master class through and through.


All of this praise is just a general view of Lost, without actually dissecting what happened, and what it happened for. Fans will discuss this show long after it's over, especially considering the final episode, aptly titled "The End". "The End" was not unlike the series finales of MASH, The Sopranos or Seinfeld, in that it was created to fit a mold the series sculpted before it. It gives the entire series a sense of cohesion, in the same way the final chapter of a novel ties everything together. I may have expected something else, but what I got was what I, as a viewer, needed. It leaves behind it a yearning in fans, one that might never be fully quenched, since I doubt another show like this will ever come along again.


Lost was the first defining show of the internet era, because in spite of the fact that excellent TV was made besides it, none felt tailor made to a generation that needs puzzles, and craves information and discussion as much as ours. It may truly be the last show that can ever be anything for anyone at the same time.Unfortunately,it's over, and everyone must move on and accept it, but where are we, as fans, after six years? Where has this show left us after all this time?

We're a bit older, but hopefully more experienced, more chiseled. We still do what we want to, whether we are meant to or not. We're emotionally involved, because it's human to be, and we sometimes get hurt for this. We're still here, on route to our final destination, as we always were. There's the past, which accounts for everything we are, and there's the future that accounts for everything we will be. But essentially, we're in the present, trying to live as best we can.

There has to be a word that perfectly describes the above situation.


Oh, yes.


Lost.

Stefan

Mass Effect 2

In November 2007 a space-themed RPG by Bioware came about and took the gaming world by storm, featuring simple but addictive gameplay, beautiful graphic design and execution, and an epic, over-the-top storyline. Two and a half years later, its sequel is here. Have Bioware met the huge expectations attached to all major sequels? Have they brushed against the bar they themselves set so high? Is Mass Effect 2 worthy of standing besides its predecessor, a regular modern classic in its own right?

Mass Effect 2 takes place two years after the first one left off, and features the same Commander Shepard we know and love, especially if you import your old save game. If you've played Mass Effect, doing so is a no-brainer, because it guarantees this game becomes something incredibly personal, by remembering both the huge and the little choices you made all along way.

Unfortunately, Mass Effect 2 is hugely referential, you can clearly enjoy it if you've never played the first one, or if you've forgotten something (impossible considering just how damn good the story is in these games), but you'll miss out on a huge amount of inside-jokes, subtle references and nods that make it the most believable alien universe you've ever visited (sorry, Pandora!), both gaming or otherwise.

The actual gameplay is improved this time around, the tedious side-quests of Mass Effect are done away with, and are replaced with either a mini-game (that still manages to feel right, even though detractors might accuse it of breaking the game's mood) or a more clear-cut mission. Even if you try to breeze throughout the game, and skip all non-essential missions, get no upgrades and ignore all the little details the plot offers, you still wind up with an almost twenty hour no-holds-barred action extravaganza. Double that if you want full completion, and that's one play through, with one character class.

Taking it all from the top without being bored by the game is no small task, and Bioware deliver the goods, because Mass Effect 2 is so broad its choices. It dispels the common myth that videogames tell you not only what to do, but give you not much choice in doing it. With its sharp dialogue (hats off to the writers), and polarizing choices, it becomes a mirror of the player's self: more than once, I struggled to choose what to say for minutes at a time. In Mass Effect 2, there are no right or wrong answers, only repercussions, and there are more lessons to be learned here than in many other works of art that are presented as "educational". It's perfectly conceivable for two different people to play the game and extract two completely different experiences, as far as both story and gameplay are concerned. That's no small task.

Graphically, the characters are more detailed this time around, showcasing the unique and unforgettable supporting cast. The soundtrack is epic and alert, seemingly torn out of any Hollywood blockbuster, and the voice acting is absolutely exemplar. The most striking example is Martin Sheen as The Illusive Man (also the best name of 2010 so far), who always gives off the impression of knowing more than he lets on. Most familiar faces return, but in unexpected ways that will surely bring about a smile for fans of the first game. From scientists to soldiers, and everything in between, the rag-tag team Shepard gathers stays with you long after the game is finished, provided everybody survives the bloody, epic and jaw-clenching affair that the final act is. By making you care about the characters, putting them in grave danger is hard, and making some bold decisions is even harder. I've intentionally stayed away from the plot, because it's surprising even if you've played the original, especially the first few minutes. It's the kind of story adjectives like "stupendous", "riveting" and "thrilling" were invented for.

The few nit-picks are irrelevant on the grand scale-some glitches and graphical hiccups, and the fact that it might seem simpler, dumber than the first, but it's more accessible, and that's no sin. Bioware should be commended for actually having the guts to overrule decisions they made that proved to be unpopular. All in all, the last few years have proven that gaming as an art is coming of age, and that for every few lousy games that come along, the response is a Bioshock, Fallout 3,Modern Warfare, or indeed Mass Effect 2 that remind us why we fell in love with the hobby in the first place.

This is one of the few games everybody should play: if you don't like it, or at least appreciate it, you not only need to stay away from gaming as a whole, but from anything that even remotely resembles art as well. Bioware have their work cut out for them: Mass Effect 3 now needs to be nothing short of perfection to avoid being a disappointment, but if anyone can pull it off, they can. Mass Effect 2 simply is an astonishing achievement: it pushes the envelope so far, we need light speed to catch up with it.

10/10 Stefan

Up In The Air

Being a corporate downsizer must be a terrible job-telling somebody that they're going to lose their job is no small task, especially when it's most likely the only time they will ever see you. It's a job for bold people, created and demanded by cowards. Jason Reitman's "Up In The Air" is about Ryan Bingham (George Clooney), one such man, but is much more than a simple checklist of his life.

Such a checklist would actually be hard to accomplish, considering the fact that Bingham spends most of his time travelling across America by plane, racking up frequent-flyer miles, and "headcounts" as far as his job is concerned. His life is aptly summed up by flying from point A to point B, then C, and so on. As far as romance is involved though, between two such points he meets Alex (Vera Farmiga), in a way a female version of himself- and they begin a casual relationship.

Ryan is soon required to show a new coworker of his the ropes, when she proposes all firings be done online. Natalie, played by the delightful Anna Kendrick, tags along and learns new things not only about the job, but of course, about herself. Ryan keeps flying along America, hoping to reach the incredible number of ten million frequent-flyer miles, his life intertwining with the people he's fired, brushing on human interaction but never actually achieving it in its entirety.

The rest of the plot and the conclusion are not necessarily mind-blowing, but work for the most part, and are a showcase for the formidable parts played by the three.

Clooney is, simply-put, sensational here, his best work ever. His nuanced performance is sensible but distanced at the same time, carrying the movie on his shoulders with ease all the way. Vera and Anna are both a treat, proving that even though apart they can't keep up with Clooney's swagger, together they can.

If up to here "Up In The Air" seems little more than a relationship drama with bits of comedy sprinkled on top, upon deeper examination, it's a much more complex and rewarding experience. I found it to be a meditation on modern times, in which people are closer and closer with the aid of technology, but in reality are growing further and further apart. This movie knows people nowadays hide in plain sight, behind a transparent wall of blogs, streams, text messages and phone calls, and is not afraid to show it, without ever being preachy.

Reitman is a smooth director, and knows how to make a personal movie, taking all the little stories in the script (smart and instantly quotable) ,and crafting a universal one out of them-it's impossible not to note that it's a film that nearly begs to be taken in, to be liked. Even if you notice this, you won't mind- the result is not perfect, but these are not perfect times, are they?

Either a feel-good movie, that comes along in the nick of time during the recession, a subtle social analysis encompassing both man and machine or indeed a near-perfect character study, "Up In The Air" appeals to both heart and mind, and any minor imperfections should not persuade you to avoid this movie. If nothing else, see it for Clooney-like good wine, he gets better with age, and he's never been as good as he is here.

9/10 Stefan

Is This It

Launched at the end of July in 2001,right before the whole world as we then knew it changed, The Strokes' "Is This It" is a seminal album: it influenced everything that came after it, historically and musically.

The album picks up with the title-track, a quiet, ballad-like song that pulls you into the band's world: starting with an electronic frizzle, its base line immediately synchs with your heartbeat, and eventually asks the Big Question : "Is this it?". The album intentionally evades giving the answer away from the start (or maybe at all). It's a ballad that talks about casual, pass-the-time, waste-your-life relationships, and sometimes the futile attempts at happiness pursuing such a relationship implies. No angst comes though, none is needed here- the second track, "The Modern Age" is all about fun, living the moment, and not giving a damn about the rest. Its fascinatingly difficult, but oh-so-subtle guitar solo coupled with the staccato verse create a joyful atmosphere: jumping around in childlike wonder is not only normal, it's obligatory ("It's in my blood" yells Casablancas- it's in ours too.).

While the third track evokes the punch-drunk confusion that falling in love puts you in, while "Barely Legal" inverts the same concept : losing one's virginity. Walking on thin ice is easy for The Strokes here though-"It all works somehow in the end", and it does. No beat seems out of place, no guitar chord is gratuitous, the lyrics and music complement each other perfectly, and "Is This It" becomes more and more of a personal experience as "Someday" begins. It's a blunt, honest track ("In many ways they'll miss the good old days";"It hurts to say but I want you to stay" or "Promises they break before they're made"), proving that rock can indeed be fun and intelligent at the same time without sounding condescending. It does not get more accessible than this, neither does it get more fun.

Irony abounds in this album, the sixth track standing testament to this fact. "Alone, Together" again treats relationships, and although the lyrics might seem sad, melancholic even if taken out of context, one listen and you realize what message The Strokes are trying to convey, maybe even find the answer to the Big Question. You can't ponder these facts for more than mere seconds at a time when your ears are bombarded with such sublime songs : "Last Night" is the perfect after-party song: it's the sound of a foggy memory trying to place itself back together even though, as plainly as Casablancas puts it "They won't understand".

The following two songs are the most powerful on the album by a long shot. "Hard to Explain" is a frantically paced narrative that needs several listens just to be understood, but only one to be enjoyed (the same can be said about the album in the end),the crazy chorus percolating into the listeners subconscious, flowing so naturally, it feels like ones mother tongue. Singing his heart out about "New York City Cops", dusty apartments and people who ” act like Romans/But dress like Turks", The Strokes have an infinite supply of energy and candor on these two tracks, singing as though they know they are the greatest band in the universe (maybe for a little while they even were).

Human emotion is a major theme in this masterpiece and the final two songs describe two very familiar ones: confusion ("Trying Your Luck") and confidence, the warranted kind ("Take It Or Leave It"). Both are so beautiful, that by the time the album ends, pressing play over and over again is the only logical step.

But how about the Big Question? Is this it? Unfortunately for The Strokes, judging by their inferior second and third albums, it probably is. We shouldn't be sad that The Strokes never managed to live up to their debut, and probably never will though.

An album like this seems all the more unlikely in this postmillennial music landscape we currently reside in. Ironically, "Is This It" does not belong in the alternative rock scene it helped create at the beginning of the "noughties", but rather in Rock Music's Valhalla, a work that deserves to be considered sacred especially because it's so fatally human.

It's the proof that sometimes, being perfect only once is enough.

10/10 Stefan

The Hurt Locker

Every once in a while a war movie comes along that is so damn good, you immediately associate it with the conflict it evokes. World War Two has Schindler's List, Saving Private Ryan or La vita è bella,while Vietnam has Apocalypse Now, Platoon or Full Metal Jacket(to name only a few in both cases). Thusly, it comes as no surprise that the current Irak War should have its fair share of movie material. The Hurt Locker comes and immediately becomes the definitive film that treats this difficult subject matter, because its collosal ease in putting together one of the most gritty, fascinating and powerful character studies ever put on the silver screen.

The Hurt Locker is the story of a US Army EOD (Explosive Ordnance Disposal) team during the war. Jeremy Renner, Anthony Mackie and Brian Geraghty are Sergeant William James, Sergeant JT Sanborn and Specialist Owen Eldridge respectively. The three must cope not only with defusing bombs and other such devices, but with the tension that builds up among them. William James is brilliant at his job, but ever so reckless, causing his two teammates, who are entrusted to keep him and themselves alive and well to label him a menace. Everything escalates, as it must, and in the end, the three will be surely changed by their harrowing experiences...or will they?

The three might appear stereotypical war-movie-characters, with the brash young maverick, his more serious counterpart that keeps him in check, and the rookie that eventually learns the harsh realities of war, but are in fact not. Mark Boal has written a brilliant, low-key script that is as much an eversion of its genre as it is a tribute- I won't say more, so as not to spoil the plot, but by turning the clichés specific to this genre on their heads he ensures the viewer will invest emotionally in the characters and cares what happens to them in the end. Said ending will surely stay with the viewers for a long time, and makes the movie stand out among its counterparts.

Kathryn Bigelow establishes herself as a brilliant director with this showcase. She avoids any confusion that often plague war movies- you know what happens on-screen at all times, and crafts set-pieces of an often unbearable tension, counterbalanced by poignant scenes of human interaction in the living hell that the battlefield is. The cinematography is immersive, and the documentary feel of the movie adds to the atmosphere, delivering, in harrowing detail, a story about heroes that appear in the most unlikely places. Some scenes might seem gratuitous to the casual popcorn munching fan, since this is not a non-stop action romp, but when the action does show up, it does so in spades. After some scenes, you might just need to remove the dust and gravel from your pores.

Our hero, William James, is played by Jeremy Renner, in his "remember-the-name" role, and he is an absolute force. Renner crafts one of the most complex character studies seen in movies in a long time, and carries his weight masterfully. If at first his simple appearance might deceive, by the time the credits are rolling, you know you have witnessed the birth of a classic. Renner's towering presence should not detract from Mackie's subtle and controlled performance as Sanborn, nor Geraghty's painfully believable turn as Eldridge. Other small roles include the ever-solid Guy Pearce, David Morse and Ralph Fiennes, their small performances feeling not as cameos but rather as forceful trumps that add to the end result.

Being politically unbiased, The Hurt Locker makes no excuses for itself- whether you perceive it as a metaphor for the artist (no matter how dangerous his canvas), the justification of heroes even in places that might not evoke their necessity, or just a hard, lifelike, gut-wrenching portrait of war and the individuals that participate, you'll surely be mesmerized by Bigelow's film.

In the end, The Hurt Locker is easy to recommend, and justifies all the praise Bigelow, Boal and especially Renner received and more, both for its obvious accomplishments, but also for the things that it leaves you with long after it's over- it's as much a slap on the wrist as it is a kick to the stomach, as much a character study as a jaw-dropping narrative, as much a war-thriller as a drama.

Essential.

10/10 Stefan

Stefan reviews "Avatar" (english)

Avatar is a rare type of movie: an event, something you jot down on your calendars and eagerly await for. As soon as news broke out of James Cameron returning to movies, and to sci-fi in particular, I knew this was going to be special. And special is exactly the word that best describes Cameron's project: from the huge budget ($237 million, officially, although some figures are closer to the $300 million mark), the fact that as of yesterday, it's the highest grossing motion picture of all time (surpassing Cameron's Titanic), and the technology is absolutely mind-blowing. But is the film any good?

Avatar takes place in the year 2154, on Pandora, a lush, vegetation-rich world, in the Alpha Centauri system. The plot's well known by now: Humans use Avatars (bio-engineered Na'vi bodies with human DNA, in which they transfer their consciousness)to relate to the indigenous population, the Na'vi, because they want to exploit Pandora's huge Unobtainium resources. Obviously, the Na'vi are sitting on a huge stockpile of it, and here comes Jake Sully (Sam Worthington) into play. He's the twin of one of the scientists who was supposed to be an Avatar operator,and steps in for his now-deceased brother. He quickly meets Neytiri (Zoe Saldana), a female Na'vi who turns out to be the daughter of the village shaman. The rest of the plot is not especially original, but more on that later.

Most of the action takes place on the surface in the lush jungles of Pandora, and visually, this is an absolute masterpiece. Cameron's crafted a stupendous view of an alien world, one that immediately evokes the viewer's childhood, when everything you see on a screen is as real as it gets. A short interlude- for the five of you that have not seen this movie, and for the few of you that have seen it in 2D: Go see this movie in 3D! The bigger the screen the better! Don't wait for the DVD, do not download. It's the most spectacular showcase of technology we've seen in cinemas since The Matrix exploded in 1999. Most 3D movies are plagued by that "gimmicky feel", but Avatar's 3D is not gratuitous, the movie relies on it to create its special atmosphere and really pulls you in. It's the closest you can come to visiting an alien world, for the foreseeable future at least.

I feel Avatar is Cameron's most personal project, and it shows. This is a cohesive package, everything seems to have its place, and with the exception of a few gratuitous scenes (you'll know them when you see them, trust me), you understand why, when and especially how everything is happening. It's also a long and condensed movie, lots of things happen, but time whizzes by. Cameron makes this seem effortless. The action scenes are fast-paced, and although the entire third act is nonstop action, the scenes are so beautifully rendered, and because we've invested emotionally in the characters already, we actually care what the outcome is.

Unfortunately, the other reason the movie passes by so quickly is because it's not particularly original, as far as the plot is concerned. I'll spare you from saying that the plot is similar to this movie, or that movie, I'm sure you can find plenty. If the cliché fits the genre, you will find it here (grisly, old and extremely dangerous military figure? Check. Young, cocky, ruthless corporate lackey? Check. The obligatory environmental/social/historical subtext? Triple Check!). Clichéd however is not bad, not in this instance. Cameron's always been good at dressing up less-than-perfect movie ideas in larger-than-life casts, effects and a snappy script. Avatar makes no exception.

The acting is solid all-around. Sam Worthington is a real find as far as I'm concerned, he strikes me as an action hero that can actually act, giving real depth and emotion to Sully, a role that could have been just as easily botched-up. Worthington keeps his performance balanced, and the viewer can immediately identify with him. Zoe Saldana, his female lead is a delight, mesmerizingly natural, especially considered we never see her without CGI. Avatar's technology finally solves the inherent problem CGI faced, the conveying of human emotions, and the subtle facial expressions essential for the viewer.

Sigourney Weaver is excellent, as usual, playing the head of the Avatar project, Dr. Grace Augustine. Her role as a foul-mouthed, chain smoking scientist is one of the highlights of the movie. As far as acting is concerned though, Stephen Lang is the absolute best this movie has to offer. His role as Colonel Miles Quaritch is so over the top, from the scars, to the badass lines ("This low gravity will make you soft. And when you get soft, Pandora will eat you whole and shit you out."), you can't help but chuckle and wonder what else he's got up his sleeve.

In the end, Avatar is not a perfect movie, and if you don't have bloated expectations, you will be impressed. If you excuse its small hiccups as far as the plot is concerned,a few cookie-cutter characters,and a plot twist or two you can see coming a mile away, and don't mind it becoming a little too overt in its environmental message, you will be putty in Cameron's able hands. It's not the best movie 2009 had to offer, but it surely is the most spectacular experience you can have in a movie theater at this time.

9/10 Stefan