Tuesday, May 19, 2009

Montauk Monster: What the Freak is That Thing?!


You've probably all heard of it by now. An unidentifiable creature washed up on the shores of Montauk, NY- by 'unidentifiable' I mean it looks like a dog with the head of a bird. Now, a year later, something very similar has washed up on a nearby beach. I have my guess of what it is and where it came from, but what do you think it is?
I will mail a king-sized Snicker candy bar to the creator of the best explanation - by 'best' I mean funny, crazy, or scientifically mind-blowing. Just send your explanations to pacson78@gmail.com.

Fringe Season Finale = Letdown


I looked forward to the Fringe finale last Tuesday with great anticipation. I had discovered the show halfway through the season and, thanks to the magic of Hulu, was able to catch up on what has become my second-favorite show. It is like the X-Files (of which I was a voracious fanboy) except funnier and lighter. I also feel like it attains moments of real terror (i.e. the opening scene of the episode with the Microwave Lady- I almost soiled myself).
Leading up to the finale, things were really ramping up. Olivia was tumbling down the rabbit hole of scientific experimentation and weirdness that was her childhood, toggling between alternate universes. Walter- by far my favorite TV character in a long time- was led away by the Observer. By the end of the second to last episode, I was rubbing my hands together in fanboy bliss, anticipating a killer finale.
But what I got was just alright. Bad guys sneaking around opening portals to alternate universes and accidentally catching people and vehicles in the crossfire? That's okay, I guess. Bad guy trying to get to the other side to kill William Bell? Doesn't really mean anything to us yet. And then the reveal in the last five minutes of Leonard Nimoy as William Bell and them being in the Twin Towers? Cool, but it didn't really make up for the lack of intensity or significance in the rest of the episode.
It was, in a word, a letdown. It seemed more designed to set the stage for next season. Maybe Lost set the bar a little too high (I watched the two finales back to back), but I felt ripped off. I didn't want the whole thing to be about the Spock reveal at the end. Having just seen and enjoyed Nimoy as Spock in Star Trek just days earlier, I found it really hard not to think of him as Spock, except that he smiled. Note to J.J.: you might want to space out the Nimoy cameos.
At any rate, I am looking forward to a second season. Let's hope they give us a better season premiere than a season finale.

Thursday, May 14, 2009

My Predictions for Season 6 of Lost

Okay, those of you who saw last night's Lost season finale are probably still reeling from one of the most adrenaline-charged finale's the show has ever given us. [I would warn you of spoilers, but, honestly, if you haven't seen it yet, you either don't really love it or you shouldn't be looking at blog posts about it.] In past season finales, the first hour has been very slow, insignificant, all build-up to the more thrilling second hour. From the opening scene, however, this one gave us reveals, action, critical confrontations, and more.
How much more? How about the long-overdue scrap between Sawyer and Jack where the whiny, daddy-issues-laden doc got the tar kicked out of him (with a whopping crotch kick, no less)? How about the sudden and then abundant revelation of Jacob, not as a grisled old apparition in a cabin but as a flesh and blood, and even saintly, immortal guy? How about multiple shootouts between Team Jack and the Dharma Initiative? Jack even tried to gun down Uncle Rico, I mean, Ben's father. And it all ended-infuriatingly, I might add- with a mortally wounded Juliette whacking Jughead with a lava rock and the whole thing going kablooey. Boom! The end.
I know, I'm still recovering. But I do want to take this opportunity to go out on a limb and submit my predictions on the sixth and concluding season of Lost (yes, it shakes me to my core just to write those words):
Prediction #1: With the death of Jacob at Ben's hands, choas has just been unleashed on the Island. The final conflict will center around taking down the guy wearing Locke's skin.
Prediction #2: The Ajira folks are Jacob-followers. The Others, especially Ben, have been taking orders from the wrong guy (i.e. the guy who has been trying to kill Jacob). This same guy has been using Locke's issues the whole time to bring him in as his corporeal host.
Okay, other than that, I'm clueless on how this thing will end. What will happen with the '77 crew and the bomb? Will things reset? If so, how will it happen?
Share your predictions (if you dare, this early)...

Tuesday, May 12, 2009

The J.J. Abrams Binge and Impending Drought


For J.J. Abrams acolytes, like myself, this week is a virtual feast, so much so that I move to have this week renamed Abramsfest in the annals of our civilization. No, seriously. Last week, we were treated to Abrams’ Star Trek. Tonight, we will see the season finale of his TV series Fringe- and what a funny, morbid, intriguing first season it has been! Then, to top it all off, Lost’s awesome fifth season comes hurtling to a close tomorrow night. I almost can’t contain myself… uh, I said almost.
Is there anyone else out there who can’t concentrate at work, home, or church because of this crazy Abrams binge (which rhymes with Fringe coincidentally)? Does anyone else have so many theories swirling in their heads they can’t drive properly?
On the downside, this binge has me fearing the impending cut-off of the Abrams awesomeness. What will I do with my time or my brain for that matter?
I don’t want to think about that too much. Let’s just enjoy this deluge of Abrams awesomeness while it lasts!

Monday, May 11, 2009

Finally Boldly Going: Review of J.J. Abrams' Star Trek


“To boldly go where no man has gone before.” I never considered the irony of that trademark phrase in the Star Trek universe until now. After seeing J.J. Abrams’ breathtaking reboot of the Star Trek franchise this weekend, the old universe feels anything but bold. ‘Thoughtful,’ ‘clever,’ and ‘sterile’ come to mind but not ‘bold.’

Oh, no- the old Trek was a bunch of well-mannered future people talking analytically about galactic problems, which were actually metaphors for sixties-era problems, and then walking calmly to resolve them while dressed in pajama-like jumpsuits. Yeah, you had the occasional cartoon phaser fight and groovy, scantily clad space ladies, but it never really breathed. It never felt visceral. It was anything but bold.

I am happy to report that, as of this weekend, Star Trek finally makes good on its promise of boldness. Star Trek has never felt so kinetic, alive, or thrilling as it does in the reboot. People actually sprint down the corridors of the Enterprise. Instead of single photon torpedoes plopping out of the Enterprise’s innards at a time, they fly out rapid-fire accompanied by a host of gun turrets. And I haven’t even discussed the characters, but I will…

Let’s start with James T. Kirk. Even in William Shatner’s green-alien-lady-macking prime, he couldn’t muster half of the presence Chris Pine does as his replacement. Pine nimbly dances from machismo to self-deprecating comedy to fear, the whole time convincing you that this is who Kirk really was meant to be, this is the kind of guy that saves the universe, not that impish guy with the weird diction from the Priceline commercials.

Spock has always been the coolest of Trek characters, what with the mind-melding and the death-gripping and the constant sense of icy logic. But, early in the new film, Abrams shakes the Vulcan’s very core, giving us a Spock who is suddenly fallible and aggressive. He’s still Spock, but he has a weakness that makes us want to root for him even more.

The other crew members are great, too. Maybe I’ll discuss their turns in a future post. Needless to say, they take a bridge that had become inhabited by a group of jolly senior citizens and imbue it with real tension, humor, and, yes, action (Sulu swordfighting… ‘nuff said!).

It is not a perfect movie. I found the new Chekov to be more annoying than anything. I didn’t quite believe the Uhura/Spock relationship, mostly because of the lack of setup. Some major plot points are overly coincidental. Catchphrases and easter eggs thrown in from the old series do feel a bit overbearing by the end. The opening scene and the spacedrop scenes are so awesome that they do eclipse the climax.

But this movie is more consistently fun, thrilling, and engaging than any Star Trek film before it, hands down. It’s also sleek and sexy and kick-butt, which is something Trek has never been. It is more fun and funnier than last year’s Iron Man. This Star Trek is finally bold.

Just a side note: I watched it dressed as Dr. Leonard “Bones” McCoy in a theater with a bunch of other Trek geeks. I won a Xbox 360 for my costume, further adding to the overall awesomeness of the event. Woot!

Monday, August 6, 2007

The Bourne Factor


With The Bourne Ultimatum reporting an amazing $70 million take this past weekend, a look into the secret of the Bourne series’ success is due. I mean, what is it exactly about Bourne that keeps the crowds coming back for more? Surely, there is no shortage of spy thrillers or fight movies. No, the marketplace has been inundated with assassins, ninjas, super agents, and the like slicing and dicing, shooting, impaling, pummeling, torching it out since, well, probably the Schwartznegger/Stallone action era. Like Bourne himself, three things set this trilogy apart from the pack: 1) its stripped down, no frills approach; 2) a conscience; and 3) a refusal to compromise with the competition.

1. No Frills – Watching Jason Bourne scrap it out tooth and nail with any of a slew of would-be assassins, one can’t help but feel a certain primal stirring within. A stirring that says, “Man, is this real? Did he just…? I can’t believe he just…! These guys are for real!” In a world of ridiculously stylized fight scenes, the bastard children of the Matrix-wrought martial arts revival, where fighters can remain suspended in the air indefinitely with time to pose, grimace, admire their flowing leather trench coats, and ricochet off each other like racquetballs, everything about the Bourne trilogy takes us so far back that it feels fresh.

I would argue that Bourne takes us back to the brutal reality of our first schoolyard fight, the jarring impact of a real car crash, and the sobering finality of a single bullet meeting its mark. Gone are the slo-mo, bullet time shots, the sneers and one-liners, and the physics-defying wire-fu acrobatics that ultimately separate us from the action. In your face are grown men clawing at each other, trying to strangle the life out of each other, wielding whatever weapon they can get their hands on (a pen, a rolled up magazine, etc.), silent, stone-faced hitmen closing in with trained disregard, all filmed in unnerving, handheld normal speed. No one flies. When people fall, they fall hard. No pounding industrial metal soundtrack here. Just the disturbing sound of bone striking flesh punctuates this fight.

Bourne does the same with car chases. Take Supremacy’s Moscow tunnel car chase, for instance. Slo-mo shots of muscle cars flipping ridiculously through the air and exploding in ridiculously large clouds of orange flame are replaced by claustrophobic hand held shots of junky European mini cars sideswiping and ramming each other into oblivion in a cramped, dark tunnel. Pieces are flying off, most too wildly to be choreographed. The entire scene is an exercise in capturing chaos. And we find ourselves breathing heavily, sweating even in the protected darkness of the theater.

This property is the very essence of what makes action cinema great. It doesn’t fantasize or try to wow us with its next overly stimulating gimmick. It puts us directly into a life-and-death struggle, in all of its excitement, fear, and moral implications, in which we civilians wouldn’t or shouldn’t find ourselves. This is exactly what makes it a transporting medium, a vehicle for greater awareness. This mature, intelligent approach to action is exactly what transforms Bourne into cinema art.

2. Conscience – Even as a moral awakening propels Bourne into his adventures and sets him apart from his hunters, so is a conscience what gives the Bourne series its soul, setting it far apart from its largely amoral or immoral competition. Consider most of our cardboard action heroes. Usually, after finally impaling, incinerating, electrocuting, dismembering, or otherwise dispatching of a foe, the “hero” walks away in slow mo, bad to the bone, flame and wreckage in his wake. We think, “Wow, that’s one bad dude. Those villains had it coming. Serves them right!” But with Bourne, we find ourselves troubled. Every time he has to murder an attacker, Bourne’s disgust and loathing of the deed is plain on his face. He is fully aware of the contradiction that he is: he kills to put killing behind him. He apologizes to the daughter of one of his past kills, painfully aware of the central moral truth that he can’t bring them back. We may gasp and exclaim as he fights for his life, but we find it difficult to celebrate and cackle with delight.

Most other action films have not figured out how to do this. The strategy most follow is to just make the bad guys as despicable and filthy as possible and then the hero can dispose of them with as much blood-soaked relish as needed. They do not consider what such barbarism does to the hero, that it kind of makes him not a hero anymore. For instance, the trailer for the upcoming Rambo update is a classic example of this. A bunch of filthy, third-world rebel military types brutally slaughter a team of humanitarians/missionaries in Southeast Asia. That’s enough for hero John Rambo. So what does he do? He grabs the ol’ hunting knife, drapes himself with bullets, and proceeds to behead, make sloppy joes of, or tear out the larynx from any rebel he runs into. And this is all just in the teaser trailer (seriously, I don’t even want to put a hyperlink out for this trailer). And get ready for more of the same, where revenge and self-determined justice are sufficient to ignore the implications of killing.

So, in this time of war, of casualties adding up on our TV screens on a daily basis, thank goodness for films that acknowledge what an awful, disturbing, arresting thing it is to end a human life, whether good or bad.

3. Refusal to Compromise – While the rest of actiondom is largely stuck in the aforementioned rut, Bourne keeps its artistic vision. Everyone else says, “More bullet time. More special effects. Bigger explosions. More improbable set pieces. More one-liners.” The makers of Bourne say, “No, let’s stay small, personal, in survivor mode. Less dialogue. Tighter tension.”

The good news is, some filmmakers appear to be taking notice. Much ado, for instance, has been made over the recent overhaul of the Bond franchise. It was interesting how, after the success of The Bourne Identity and The Bourne Supremacy, James Bond suddenly became much more Bourne-like. The story? Smaller, personal, in survivor mode. The usually eloquent, wisecracking Bond was suddenly less talkative, more grunting. The fight scenes had an unmistakable hint of Bourne, much more physical, sloppy, claustrophobic, and- bingo!- no slo-mo. Laughable villains with razor top hats and impervious metal teeth were replaced with steely eyed assassins equipped only with machetes and frighteningly fast hands. Moreover, the new Bond was surprisingly human, romantically attached to one woman, so attached in fact that he was emotionally shaken by her betrayal and then her demise. Critics hailed the move as a genius revival of a flailing franchise. I say they stole a page or two from the Bourne playbook. Not that I’m complaining.

Obviously I think Bourne rocks! I hope we see more like it. What do you all think about Jason Bourne? Love him? Hate him? Who will take his place when he’s gone? Chime in…

Monday, July 30, 2007

The Sci-Fi Anthology Revived?


This past Saturday night, I was flipping through the channels looking for something to numb my brain... America’s Got Talent... America’s Funniest Home Videos... Then, suddenly, a commercial for an upcoming series caught me half-conscious. I wouldn’t have even paid it any of my waning attention were it not for John Locke’s (a.k.a. actor Terry O'Quinn’s) familiar cranium filling the screen. Thinking it was something Lost-related, I instantly snapped out of my coma. Various sci-fi-esque images followed. Shots of Cancer Man (from the X-Files) and Anne Heche. Another shot of John Locke. Something about the greatest sci-fi writers of all time. Stephen Hawking narrating. Then finally the title: Masters of Science Fiction.

I wanted to grab the delightfully surprising teaser and hold it in my hands, but, alas, it was gone as fast as it had appeared. I almost wasn’t sure if I had heard correctly: the return of the sci-fi anthology show? Could it be true? In this summer of throwaway, reality shows and American Idol voting competition clones, nothing would be more welcome. Finally, some relief from glorified prime time soap operas and comedy-less sitcoms.

Just to put this in context, I ate, slept, and breathed The Twilight Zone as a child. Other shows made their stabs at the sci-fi anthology (i.e. The Outer Limits, One Step Beyond, The New Twilight Zone, The New Outer Limits, The New, New Twilight Zone, and maybe even Tales from the Crypt if we want to get really broad), but none achieved the same style, chills, gravitas, and stark sci-fi speculation of the original Rod Serling show. For at least the last ten years, the sci-fi anthology show has been pretty much extinct, especially on network television.

What a surprise then to find that ABC is making a move to bring it back. And not just with some promised thrills and chills, but with a bona fide sci-fi pedigree and some real star power to back it up. Just for the first episode, writing credits include John Kessel (Nebula Award winner), Hollywood Blacklist writer Howard Fast, sci-fi founding father Robert Heinlein, and Harlan Ellison (seven-time Hugo Award winner, three-time Nebula Award winner and Science Fiction Grand Master Laureate). I don't even know what that last title means but it sounds tantamount to something like "I'm-the-real-deal-in your-face-king of science-fiction-and-I-will-blow-your-mind-into-next-millenium." Starring will be Sam Waterston, Anne Heche, Terry O’Quinn, Malcolm McDowell, and John Hurt among others. Honestly, this probably has more potential than any anthology that has been released since the Twilight Zone update that aired briefly in the 80s.

I don’t know much more about this series other than what I discovered on the ABC website, which I recommend you check out here. But I can assure you that, come 10 pm next Saturday night, I will be tuned into ABC to give this potential beauty a chance. What do you all think? Is this the start of something good? Am I the only one out there who craves my sci-fi dark and thoughtful? Check out the website and give us your take…