Knight of Cups (2016)

Film: Knight of Cups (2016)
Stars: Christian Bale, Cate Blanchett, Natalie Portman, Brian Dennehy, Antonio Banderas, Wes Bentley
Director: Terrence Malick
Oscar History: No nominations
Snap Judgment Ranking: 4/5 stars

Entering the world of a Terrence Malick film, for me, is a religious experience.  No other director, save perhaps for Bergman or Kubrick, is such a guarantee of a visceral, gut-wrenching, provocative cinematic journey.  Malick's films are always unique upon themselves, perhaps wise, perhaps just pretty pictures, but as a deep, deep fan of his work I leave even his strangest or most limited of movies a different person, surrounded by the ethereal language of his storytelling.

(Spoilers Ahead) This is a fancy way of saying that I went into Knight of Cups with a bias that is probably not going to be easily assuaged, even though I had seen the reviews and was aware that even amongst the most ardent of Malick fans, the picture may have shown some signs of wear-and-tear.  Summarizing a Malick film into simply its plot and nothing more is a foolish, ridiculous thing, but suffice it to say we have Christian Bale as a Hollywood screenwriter enjoying intense success, but also with that a lascivious indulgence of sex, drugs, and most imperatively, gluttony.  Gluttony in every sense, as we see Bale, gorgeous, nonchalant, but ultimately shallow in his approach to life, have a dreamy, impossibly-blessed existence from which he and those around him derive little joy, even if they ultimately couldn't live without it.

In part I was reminded of the films of Paolo Sorrentino, whose near-perfect The Great Beauty has come the closest in the sea of Malick imitators in the past few years to achieving the sort of moving, profound visual dialogue with the audience that only Malick has been able to grasp in such a way.  Like Sorrentino's films, we see a world of decadence, gaudy and yet always beautiful.  Emmanuel Lubezki, three Oscars in, somehow will likely go without having ever won for a Malick film (it's hard to imagine him winning a fourth while Terry is still making movies), but man is the cinematography here on-fire.  The warehouse scenes and the sequences on an old movie lot are particularly jarring, seeing the phoniness of the world around a particularly plastic individual and the way that even human life doesn't seem to liven up the world around us.  Yes, the nature scenes are gorgeous, but I found the man-made structures, which Malick always frames in odd, almost alien ways (who can forget the Sonic station in To the Wonder and how it felt like it was encroaching on the natural beauty of the nature around it), to be the highlights visually.

The acting in his films is deeply hard to judge, partially because Malick is an unforgiving editor (lest we forget that Mickey Rourke, Rachel Weisz, and Michael Sheen were all A-listers that randomly got cut from his movies), and also because no actor, save for Bale, is given more than the tiniest smidgen of dialogue.  That being said, Blanchett and Bentley are the highlights for me, as Blanchett creates a woman that feels authentically of a world not just of Bale's imagination.  In fact, she is perhaps the only woman that doesn't feel like a part of his dream, while others like Freida Pinto and Natalie Portman lift in and out of the story to the point where you can't tell if they are just flights of fancy, so beautiful that Bale just added them to his mental aesthetic.  Bentley is equally as good as the disappointment of a brother, the one who knows the hold he has on Bale and his father, but who is too callous and perhaps even too middling to be able to do anything except prod.

The movie is not, it should be noted, anywhere as good as The Tree of Life or To the Wonder, the other two in what appears to be a biographical trilogy of Malick remembrances (early in his career, before he became a cinematic Thomas Pynchon, Malick wrote films for the likes of Clint Eastwood and Paul Newman so this is clearly that portion of his career).  The scope is too limited in focusing on the meaning of purpose rather than the broader meaning of life or meaning of love like his other more recent pictures.  There are moments in the film that feel a tad indulgent, and Bale doesn't have the prowess in his role that, say, Brad Pitt or Q'orianka Kilcher brought to previous work in Malick pictures.  That being said, this is judging on a curve and while his flights of fancy don't pay off, there are still relatively profound moments, especially with Blanchett and Bentley, that resonate far beyond what is happening just in the moments in a dimmed theater.

Those are my thoughts on this, Malick's latest for probably a while (I'll believe that Weightless exists when I see it)-how about yours?  Are you Team Malick, and if so, share a favorite film?  And where does Knight of Cups rank in his pantheon?

The Race to Be Hillary Clinton's Running-Mate

With the Democratic primaries continuing to look close, but with Hillary Clinton seemingly in a slim but insurmountable lead (especially considering her near unwavering strength amongst the superdelegates), the next chapter of the campaign appears to be starting, and with that comes chatter over whom Hillary Clinton will pick to be her Joe Lieberman, her John Edwards, or (if she's lucky), her Joe Biden.  Clinton's campaign has already sent out what are clearly feelers to the public, with specific names being bandied by Democratic operatives and being leaked to the more gossip-fueled political websites such as Politico.  While there's still a long way to go before Clinton, eternally cautious, shows her hand and we see who her running-mate is, it's never too early to speculate, and I figured I'd do a Top 10 list this Wednesday morning of the dectet of contenders I most think could be her running-mate.

Not on the List: I am including only candidates who are likely to be on the list, and not just those that the media wants to fawn over in an indulgent/fantasy sort of way.  As a result, you'll see no Joe Biden (if he wanted to run another campaign, he would have made a play for the top spot), no Elizabeth Warren (she's been a thorn in Hillary Clinton's side for months, has more power staying on as a senator and may be coming in in 2020 and building off of Bernie Sanders' momentum, and plus I get the feeling that the Clinton Camp really doesn't like her), and no John Kasich (really, news media?!?).  You're also missing some slightly more believable, but likely not credible candidates like Govs. Ed Rendell and Terry McAuliffe, both longtime Clinton allies but who have too many skeletons in the closet for such a high-profile campaign moment.  And finally, only People magazine thinks something like a Bill Clinton or Michelle Obama running-mate situation is feasible, so let's not even go there.

10. Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-VT)

For Him: I almost put him on the list above, but it's hard to shake the appeal of Sanders to certain sectors of the Democratic Party.  After all, he's won many states, nearly as many as Clinton, and continues to be an ardent presence on the campaign trail.  One of the biggest questions Clinton will have for her campaign should she win the nomination is how to get Sanders' supporters onto her side as she swings into November.  This would definitely the swiftest and easiest way of accomplishing that, and it feels like there will at least be some pressure on Clinton to make this happen.

Against Him: It's rare that someone picks a chief primary opponent anymore, certainly not as their first choice, John Edwards being the obvious exception.  Barack Obama and George W. Bush both faced similar pressures, but neither picked Hillary Clinton nor John McCain, respectively, and I suspect that Clinton will assume that Sanders supporters will come to their side in a similar vein, thus pivoting to a candidate who may have more appeal to general election voters.

9. Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO)

For Her: Admittedly McCaskill is on this list as both a test balloon for an all-female ticket as well as because she's my favorite senator (I could just as easily have pitched Amy Klobuchar or Jeanne Shaheen, both of whom would have their own set of political ups-and-downs).  However, McCaskill is a former Obama supporter who came out incredibly strong for Clinton, and has been a pitbull for her against Sanders and the Trump campaigns.  She's a tough campaigner, a Democrat successfully elected (twice) to the Senate from a red state, and a former prosecutor which would help her on the campaign trail and especially in a debate.  Put it this way-if she were a man, we'd all be talking about how she's going to be the VP.

Against Her: Will Clinton, known for her caution, take such a bold risk even if she may secretly want to do so?  I have a hard time believing she will, and McCaskill's more moderate profile (particularly on trade) may alienate Sanders supporters hoping for a more traditional progressive on the ticket.

8. Gov. Deval Patrick (D-MA)

For Him: Patrick is one of two African-American Democrats who currently have the stature to run for national office (and aren't already in that position), and some would argue that Patrick is the stronger contender of the two.  After all, he's an unquestioned liberal, served two terms as governor, and is a great orator as was evidenced in 2012 during the convention when he brought the house down while Martin O'Malley had just a lukewarm reception.  While Clinton has enjoyed strong support from the African-American community, her husband employed a double-down strategy when he picked Al Gore and it worked-would she consider something similar?

Against Him: There's no evidence that African-American voters would be more enthused to support Clinton with a member of their community on the ticket, particularly considering their ardent support of her in the primaries and the fact that Trump's rhetoric is probably going to drive up minority voters in general for the left.  Plus, Patrick is a Massachusetts Democrat and after Michael Dukakis and John Kerry, quite frankly, it's hard to make that pitch a third time to a party still stinging from two Bush losses.

7. Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA)

For Him: He's one of the only Democrats on the national stage who has been both a governor and a senator, and he was a wildly successful businessman to boot.  Throw in that he's from a swing state and it's easy to see Warner's appeal.  He's a generally likable guy, and I suspect he'd keep Virginia firmly in Clinton's camp, which would inch her almost certainly closer to the White House, if not pushing her completely into the Oval Office.

Against Him: His reelection numbers in 2014, even in a landslide year for the GOP, were anemic and he very nearly Roy Barnes-ed himself.  He's not the smartest choice even in his home state, and he might be too blase for the White House.  Plus, it's worth noting that Warner could have run in 2008 and didn't, and some have questioned whether he'd be up for a race of this rigor.

6. Sec. Thomas Perez (D-MD)

For Him: Chatter within the beltway seems to have centered around Perez as an underdog sort of candidate, one that is probably underestimated in Democratic circles and could be a way for Clinton to gain Sanders supporters by picking someone who has been a strong supporter of her campaign but would be palatable to them.  Clinton is watching President Obama's approval numbers rise, and if they continue to hold, picking another person from his cabinet wouldn't be the worst idea. He has Elizabeth Warren's backing, which is something that Clinton will want to shore up the left, and being an Hispanic in an election year where Latino voters will be critical for whomever wins the White House, can't hurt.

Against Him: He's never held major elected office before, and his 2006 Attorney General campaign was a bit embarrassing to say the least.  It's hard to be able to tell whether or not he would be a great debater, or whether picking someone with so little elected experience would be seen as pandering by the media.  Overall it feels like Perez may be a better choice for a lower office, like Maryland's governor, before trying to make a play nationally.

5. Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ)

For Him: If Hillary Clinton actually has a youth problem, picking the most social media-savvy politician in the country wouldn't be the worst way to go.  Booker is wildly popular amongst younger voters, and could energize them in a way that would make even Bernie Sanders impressed.  The New Jersey Democrat is one of only a few Democrats who voted against fast-track, which has to help him in terms of the left (which is suddenly very anti-trade), and could go a long way with getting union support.  Throw in the fact that his presence on the ticket could be a plus for African-American voters and shared media markets could make him an asset in Pennsylvania, and you have a solid candidate.

Against Him: While he's not a supporter of fast-track, his comments in 2012 about how President Obama was too vicious in attacking Mitt Romney's business record still induce cringes to Democratic stalwarts, and some say that the senator is too young and too new to the national stage to be given such an important role.  Plus, he's single, and that's one of the few taboos that has not been tackled nationally in modern politics.

4. Sen. Al Franken (D-MN)

For Him: When this was first posited by Bill Scher in Politico this last week, I scoffed, but the more you think about it the more it makes sense.  After all, if (as most assume) Donald Trump is Hillary Clinton's opponent, perhaps the biggest issue won't be shoring up the Democratic base (women and persons of color will be coming out in droves simply to stop Trump), but perhaps someone who works well with the chaos of celebrity.  Franken has proven to be a strong workhorse in the Senate, but his skills as a comedian, as well as someone who could sharply contrast Trump while still being in his famous personality wheelhouse, could be exactly what the Clinton campaign needs.  It's not for nothing that he did a video recently for the former First Lady. 

Against Him: It kind of depends on how the Clinton campaign plans on handling Trump and his force of nature persona (so far they've been more about drilling home to the base how dangerous he is, and not picking off Republicans, or specifically, swayable white male voters).  If they want to go the "the GOP's the clown car team" they're probably not going to get as much credit there by picking a former SNL cast member.  If, however, they want to beat Trump at his own game, Franken would be the perfect anecdote.

3. Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH)

For Him: He's from a swing state.  THE swing state.  That's a start, but Sherrod Brown has a lot to offer in terms of liberal credentials (he also voted against fast-track, and while a strong supporter of Clinton he has impeccable liberal credentials that the Sanders/Warren wing of the party could hardly dismiss).  He's been elected statewide in Ohio four times so he knows his way around the kitchen, and if he were to land the Buckeye State for Clinton, the November race would be over.

Against Him: While I think he'd help the argument in Ohio, Republicans could counter with a Kasich or Portman as the running mate and they would defeat Brown, who doesn't have their skill at a pulpit.  Honestly, though, the biggest issue with Brown is Kasich in a different capacity-as the man who would choose his successor.  With a Supreme Court slot on the line, the Clintons need all of the senators they can get into the Democratic coat room, and picking a man who would result in a Republican senator wouldn't be savvy considering how likely it is the next Senate majority is a result of a tie (this, for the record, is also an issue for Cory Booker, though not Sanders, McCaskill, Franken, or Warner).

2. Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA)

For Him: I wavered pretty hard between Kaine and our Number One for the top slot, and it's easy to see what Kaine brings to the conversation.  After all Kaine has pretty much everything going for him: he's a senator and a former governor, so he'll help on both fronts, a former DNC Chair (so he can raise money and be an attack dog), won his last election handily, is popular with the Obama wing of the party, speaks Spanish fluently (and has done so on the Senate floor), comes from a swing state, and it's a swing state with a Democratic governor so there's no risk of the Democrats losing his seat if he has to resign.  All-in-all, that's about all you could ask for from one candidate.

Against Him: Kaine is the head candidate, not the heart candidate, and Democrats vote with their hearts.  He voted for fast-track, so he's not without fault in the liberal wing of the party (as that seems to be the likely litmus test), and he's famously close to Team Obama, which may make the clubb-y Team Clinton a little bit nervous.  Plus, it's hard to see Kaine gaining much excitement if that's where Clinton is going.

1. Sec. Julian Castro (D-TX)

For Him: I'm sticking with Castro at the top spot if only because I think he's slightly more in Clinton's good graces than Kaine.  While he's a member of the Obama cabinet, that seems more out of necessity to promote a clearly-rising star than anything else, and he's been a strong Clinton advocate on the campaign trail.  He's young, Latino, and has the same sort of potential that made Bill Clinton and Barack Obama shine.  If the goal is to get young people and minority voters out, Castro seems like an outstanding candidate, and Clinton has taken a liking to him on the campaign trail.  Plus, he's considerably younger than her and would shore up (at least partially) the age question on the campaign trail.

Against Him: He fails the liberal TPP test, but I suspect that will mean less for someone that wasn't in Congress to vote on it, but perhaps his biggest question is experience.  With Kaine (or even Brown or Franken) you know what you're getting-they've done the debate thing, they've been in tough races, and they have a track record for dealing with someone like a Chris Christie or a Jeff Sessions.  Castro has never been on the national stage in a major way, and Sarah Palin is a recent enough memory to make Democrats leery about picking someone without a lot of experience.  I think he's the top choice because he hasn't exhibited many Palin-like tendencies, but know that he'll have to be on the campaign trail a little harder and longer for Clinton before he actually assuages those fears.

There you have it-the likely vice presidential contenders.  Share your guesses (and hopes) down below!

Ranting On...the Unfair Convention Process

It goes without saying that "I agree with Donald Trump" is a sentence that I don't get to utter on a regular basis, and I'm deeply proud of that fact.  However, something has come to mind for me in the past few weeks that has started to make me vehemently uncomfortable, and that as a result is making me side with the real estate mogul in a way I haven't before.  Don't get ahead of yourself-I'd rather vote for a damp rag than Trump in an election, but his shining a light upon the primary process, and in particular the way that it is wholly undemocratic, is a conversation that I'm glad is happening.

What I am referring toward is the situation in Louisiana, where Ted Cruz appears likely to, despite losing the popular vote in the state, gain more delegates than Trump when the dust is settled.  This is due in part to five delegates pledged to Marco Rubio who likely are going to end up with Cruz (an unfair, but not exactly avoidable situation), but also due to five unpledged delegates who are not required to support a specific candidate.  As a result, the people of Louisiana, despite voting for Trump, may see their majority denied in delegate counts when it comes to the convention.  This matters more than usual this year as the quest for 1237 and the Republican nomination is so much closer than it usually is for the GOP.

The problem here is that every state has different rules, and the process is challenging, and quite frankly in some respects the Trump campaign got caught sleeping here, focusing entirely on winning elections and not on the complex math behind how some of the delegates are going to the RNC.  There's always a little hubris watching a novice politician that is as much of a blowhard as Trump getting caught behind not following the rules as he so clearly hates the decorum usually afforded a presidential race, but that only lasts so far as the people of Louisiana deserve to have their voices heard at the Republican Convention this fall, and considering they went for Trump, there should be more voices (at least on the first ballot) for the New York businessman than Sen. Cruz.

This actually has been a problem in past elections, though I suspect you might not have noticed because the results of those races were decided in advance and as a result no one probably cared because the end result was as expected.  One particularly egregious example of the voters' will being upended came in 2012 with Ron Paul.  The former Texas congressman never won a single, solitary state, but yet somehow, thanks to arcane rules about what you're actually voting for in a caucus or primary, he still managed to take the majority of the delegates from Nevada, Iowa, and Minnesota, despite those states being won by Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum when the populace actually voted.  This is a huge circumvention of the people if, through backroom deals and lobbying of the powers-that-be, you can disregard the will of the majority of the people of a particular state.

The Democrats are not immune to criticism here, either, it's worth noting.  DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz has come under fire for her rather misguided defense of the tradition of superdelegates, and really there's no actual reason why a state should have superdelegates at a convention, if we're being totally honest.  They seem to serve as an insurance policy against, say, a Donald Trump (which doesn't feel like the worst idea this season, admittedly), but they are not always elected officials (where one could speciously claim that the people have spoken on having superdelegates attend), and frequently will go in a direction that is different than the state or district that they represent (someone like, say Sen. Jeanne Shaheen will be casting a ballot for Hillary Clinton even though Bernie Sanders won New Hampshire, for example).  That's wrong-we need to get to a system where we reward all delegates of each state proportionally, with no special privileges or backroom deals coming in the way of the people.

Some ways to fix this would be to eliminate the concept of unpledged delegates (at least on the first ballot) and superdelegates, and to eliminate winner-take-all states.  Every single state should be forced, with a threshold intact (like, say, achieving 10% of the populace) to only submit delegates based on which candidates actually won in the states.  This would make sure that the will of the people (regardless of your opinion-we get the government we deserve, after all), is represented in the Republican and Democratic nominees.

I also want to trumpet two other changes I have long espoused as a reminder this time of year.  One, caucuses are deeply undemocratic and are an awful tradition, truly one of the worst celebrated by both parties.  It limits who can attend an election by not having a more open polling process, and how many voices are heard in a primary, and that's awful.  I feel particularly ashamed of Democrats who have continued this tradition, considering we have made ballot box-accessibility a cause celebre over the past decade.

The second is that we need to eliminate a staggered primary.  The reality is that, with the rare exception of this year's GOP race where voting in a late state is just as valuable as voting in an early one, states like Iowa and New Hampshire are given far too much importance at the expense of later states.  It's not inconceivable that, say, Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio would have done better had they had other states at the forefront of the conversation.  The reality is that we need one national primary day (preferably one that, like Election Day should be each year, is a federal holiday) where each state votes at once.  This would admittedly give rise to more contested conventions, but it would also ensure that no voter's vote is worth more, or as has been highlighted in Louisiana, worth less, than anyone else's.

OVP: The Americanization of Emily (1964)

Film: The Americanization of Emily (1964)
Stars: James Garner, Julie Andrews, Melvyn Douglas, James Coburn, Joyce Grenfell
Director: Arthur Hiller
Oscar History: 2 nominations (Best Cinematography, Art Direction)
Snap Judgment Ranking: 3/5 stars

For years, nestled between her two absolute classics Mary Poppins and The Sound of Music, has been the movie that Julie Andrews proclaimed was her absolute favorite of all of her pictures, The Americanization of Emily.  The film, a hit back in its day but which has faded quite a bit from public consciousness compared to Andrews' two other squeaky clean family films, is a shockingly political and progressive film for 1964, with a pacifist viewpoint particularly from Garner's character.  Watching the classic western star play what many at the time (and even today) would have considered a coward is a truly interesting thing to view, and makes Americanization more than just a curiosity.

(Spoilers Ahead) The film follows Julie Andrews as Emily, a widow who is working in the war effort in World War II, and who has taken a dislike toward her employers, the recently arrived Americans, led by Lt. Commander Charlie Madison (Garner).  Emily is tired of war, and of losing men she loves in it (her husband, brother, and father have all died in war), and when it turns out that Charlie is someone who will never see the frontlines and is a man who seems to value personal survival more than bravery, she falls in love with him as he appears to be a safe option.  As this is a Hollywood movie, we of course soon find that Charlie will need to be on the main front, as part of a documentary production crew, as his commanding officer (Douglas) has gone a bit mad and is insistent that the first man killed at Omaha Beach be a sailor so that the Navy can get some solid press over the Air Force and the Army.  This results in Charlie nearly dying at Omaha Beach at the hands of his friend Bus (Coburn) who has gone insane with trying to ensure that a sailor dies, and the world thus thinks Charlie is dead, making him a hero and having Emily believe she lost another man to war.  The film ends in the most traditional of fashions, with Charlie deciding to accept his heroism rather than expose the silliness of his death, and living a long and happy life with Emily.

The film sounds relatively routine from most standpoints, of course.  We have a reluctant soldier driven to the frontlines, romanced by a beautiful woman who initially dislikes him, and in the end doing what is best for his country.  However, the film doesn't really play by those rules and it's actually quite shocking the ways that the picture takes on an anti-war attitude, particularly on the eve of the Vietnam Conflict.  After all, World War II is not one of the wars we typically identify as a war that people disagreed with entering.  In fact, almost every film about the war celebrates heroism and the dire needs to get into the battle for the sake of humanity.  The idea that someone could be against it is appalling, but it's worth noting that such a thing did exist.  People like Rep. Jeanette Rankin (who was threatened and forced into retirement for her vote) stood against the United States entering World War II, and the film is quick to point out that there is unnecessary pageantry and political posturing in even the most life-and-death of situations.  The movie's politics are what makes it particularly interesting (that, and seeing Julie Andrews play a deeply promiscuous woman, which always feels a bit staggering), as the actual picture itself doesn't break a lot of molds and feels pretty tired when it isn't focusing on its refreshing (even if you don't agree with them) political views.

The film won two Academy Award nominations, both gaining from its black-and-white status (at the time Cinematography and Art Direction categories were split between color and B&W).  The film's art direction is impressive, I will give it that.  The sets all feel relatively authentic, and there are scenes like the one at Omaha Beach where there's clearly been some detailing done into creating a relatively authentic-looking battlefield.  Plus, the film is focused very ardently on the many things that you can want in a wartime effort, and the boxes show the excess of Charlie's position quite nicely.  The cinematography isn't bad, but aside from the truly frightening dew that is cast over the Omaha Beach invasion, there's nothing landmark here.  We see a bit of shadow and the lighting for Andrews is good, but this isn't something that needed an Oscar nomination by any stretch of the imagination, and one assumes it was just because we were starting to run out of black-and-white pictures that the movie took the citation.

Those are my thoughts on the surprising Americanization of Emily-how about yours?  Do you also find it strange to see Julie Andrews playing someone saucy?  Are you shocked occasionally by a movie's politics?  And what other black-and-white films got their Oscar counts jacked by them keeping dual categories around too long?  Share your thoughts in the comments!

OVP: Zootopia (2016)

Film: Zootopia (2016)
Stars: Ginnifer Goodwin, Jason Bateman, Idris Elba, JK Simmons, Tommy Chong, Octavia Spencer, Jenny Slate, Shakira
Director: Byron Howard and Rich Moore
Oscar History: 1 nomination/1 win (Best Animated Feature*)
Snap Judgment Ranking: 4/5 stars

Can we all just agree that the marketing campaign for Zootopia, was, well, terrible?  I mean, the worst.  When I first saw the film's commercial, with a bunny and a wisecracking fox getting into easy jokes with a sloth, I figured this was the moment when Disney, usually a cut-above, devolved into being nothing more than a psuedo-Dreamworks, something that used to be beautiful and now had become, well, generic.  And yet, Zootopia is anything but a simple Dreamworks picture; it is instead focused on attacking prejudice and having a truly fascinating discussion with its younger audience about the implications of acceptance and prejudice in our society.  It's extremely timely and also shockingly political for a studio that as a general rule tries to stay just left of center in its overall political tone.

(Spoilers Ahead) The film follows Judy Hopps (Goodwin), a spunky rabbit who wants to become the first "prey" animal to be a police officer in Zootopia.  For you see, this is a world where lamb and wolf, rabbit and fox, gazelle and lion, they all live in harmony without anyone having to worry about being eaten (the film is never quite clear on what it is the predators eat aside from donuts and sugary cereal, but that's a discussion for the inevitable sequel).  Judy, though, faces scorn from her fellow cops who view her as a token hire, someone that was brought in to make the police department look more inclusive.  As a result, she gets a job as a meter maid, giving out tickets all around town.

By circumstance, she ends up being assigned a task to look for a missing otter, and is joined up (through coercion) by a wily fox who helps her through the seedier parts of the town.  As the film progresses, her initial prejudice against the fox (as there is, amongst her rural family, a fear that erupts toward foxes and other predators) turns into friendship, but when it turns out that the predators are "going wild" she spouts off some hateful speech that causes the predators in the community to be unjustly attacked and causes great fear and panic.  Even her friendship with Nick the Fox (Bateman) sours, as the film goes on, until (like all good Disney films) we learn that there is a logical explanation for the crime, and predator working with prey, they find out the true culprit just in time for everyone to go to a Shakira concert (she's a gazelle in the film, and is joined by a series of gay, dancing muscular tigers).

The film's politics are not subtle, but this is a children's film so it's not like they should be.  It's relatively obvious to draw some of the parallels between the predator community in the film and racial minorities in today's culture, and the way that prejudice hurts society at large when we spread falsehoods that have no substantiation in fact.  It seems kind of kismet considering the time that it requires to make an animated film that Disney was able to make this movie happen the same year that a racist zealot is running for president with a frightening amount of success.  It's kind of stunning, quite frankly, that I haven't been hearing FOX News reports every night about the liberal dangers of letting your kids watch Zootopia.  Perhaps even they see the danger of Trump at this point.

The film functions well outside of just being a morality tale.  The world-building is extraordinary, some of the best I've seen in years.  Zootopia, clearly a proxy for New York City, is rich in its detail and distinctive sets to the point that if this was a live-action film, we'd have already given the movie the Best Production Design Oscar.  The mystery, while eventually it becomes obvious who is behind the crimes, stays an enigma long enough to be lauded for an animated feature.  And the vocal cast is uniformly good, even Jason Bateman of whom I have a sharp allergy, partially because the only stunt-casting is Shakira, and she's essentially playing herself as a gazelle.

The movie is not without faults, of course.  For a film that tries to defy prejudice, it relies on a few stereotypes to get its point across (slow slothes, procreative bunnies, sneaky weasels), that might deter its message slightly (it shouldn't just be Judy striking out), and there is still the problem with the animal metaphor rather than using actual humans (because unlike the real world, there is still the inherent reality that a real-life rabbit should, in fact, be scared of a real-life fox or wolf), but these are minor quibbles for one of the most surprising efforts to come out of the Mouse House in a long time.  Considering Frozen and Zootopia are recent entries there and Pixar seems incapable of making anything but sequels for the next few years, one wonders if John Lasseter has truly accomplished a role reversal?  We shall see-Finding Dory and Moana come out later this year.

Until then, share your thoughts on Zootopia, and its proudly political stance.  Are you a fan of the movie, or were you turned off by its marketing campaign?  What do you think are its Oscar/sequel chances?  Share your opinions in the comments!

Ranting On...Novak Djokovic and Sexism in Athletics

I really hope all of you enjoyed Lost week this past week-it was a passion project that I've been wanting to do for a number of months, and I'm so glad that it all came together.  If you haven't read any of the articles, please peruse here, as I think you'll like it if you're a devoted or casual fan of the program.  However, for those of you where the phrase "what lies in the shadow of the statue?" means absolutely nothing to you, and want some more Oscars, movie reviews, and politics, the blog is about to be handed back to you.  However, I wanted to first address one of the bigger issues that happened while I was away in another passion area of mine: tennis.

For those who missed the controversies (and no, I'm not talking about the Sharapova failed drug tests, though come on there-someone on her team should have been able to see that issue coming as no other major tennis player failed that drug test), Raymond Moore, the CEO of BNP Paribas Open (more commonly known-amongst tennis fans as Indian Wells), stated in regard to Serena Williams, Victoria Azarenka, and the WTA in general, "in my next life when I come back, I want to be someone in the WTA because they ride on the coattails of the men.  They don't make any decisions and they are lucky.  They are very, very lucky.  If I was a lady player, I'd go down every night on my knees and thank God that Roger Federer and Rafa Nadal were born, because they have carried this sport."  Later, during the same tournament, reigning World No. 1 (and the champion of Indian Wells), Novak Djokovic, piggy-backed off of Moore's comments, and while not using the same sort of incendiary language, did indicate that the ATP should push to be making more once again than the WTA due to the men allegedly garnering more spectators to their tournaments.

These sorts of statements are sadly par for the course when it comes to sexism, particularly in the world of athletics, and are quite instantly rebuked.  After all, Djokovic may claim that spectators are coming just to see he and his fellow male athletes coming out to play, but that is pretty easily refuted. The 2015 US Open tournament, which had a matchup between Serena and Venus Williams, sold out faster for the women than for the men.  In 2013 and 2014, the US Open Final garnered better ratings for the women than the men, and in 2005 it was even a wider gap-1 million more people tuned in for Venus Williams' come-from-behind Wimbledon victory over world Number One Lindsay Davenport than they did the same match between Andy Roddick, and Raymond Moore's case-in-point Roger Federer.

Moore's comments are equally rebuffed in such a fashion, particularly in citing Serena Williams, arguably the most famous and beloved tennis star in the United States at this point in time.  My gut says that if you polled 1000 people in Time Square tomorrow you'd find more who had heard of Serena Williams than Roger Federer or Rafael Nadal, or if you asked them to name a tennis player, they'd likely have more that name Williams.  She'd certainly outmatch the best current American men's tennis player John Isner in pretty much any name recognition poll.  You could argue Rafa or Roger have more sway in Europe, but for the chairman of an American tournament to be making the vulgar (yes, he meant the crude double entendre as language like that is never used toward straight men) statements against Serena being a big draw to his tournament, well, I suspect he's not only a chauvinist but perhaps bad at bookkeeping.

The reality is that tennis, like very few other sports (gymnastics and figure skating are the only two that come to mind), is one of the rare athletic worlds where women have achieved financial parity with men, at least in terms of championship salaries (it's worth noting women's tennis comes nowhere near men's in terms of endorsement deals, which are far more plentiful for the male side of the fence).    Only rare athletic fields like gymnastics and figure skating (where, it should be noted, women completely dominate the conversation in terms of athletic press and endorsement deals), have equal pay for women and men alike, and by Novak's argument the women should be paid more there, which feels equally wrong.  The reality is that tennis has long been a sport that has celebrated both men and women, and has had women that were just as big of headliners (the likes of Billie Jean King, Martina Navratilova, Chris Evert, and Stefi Graf can go toe-to-toe with the men of their age in terms of headlines), and it's likely that emerging talents such as Simona Halep and Madison Keys will keep that tradition going once the Williams sisters have hung up there rackets.

In short, Novak Djokovic may understand how to win at tennis better than almost any other men's player in the world right now, but he clearly doesn't understand the grand appeal of his sport.  Striving for equality and for equal pay has been a proud tradition of tennis, and its near unparalleled gender-balance in terms of press and celebration is something that should be championed, not derided.

Just One More: The New Man in Charge

Well, I truly hope you enjoyed the Lost Week we just had, and that it brought back fond memories of the series (or made you want to see the show).  Tomorrow we'll return to our regularly scheduled programming of movies and politics, but before that happens, I figured since Damon and Carlton left us with one last tidbit that showed up on the Lost Season 6 DVD, it was imperative that we also give that a recap as well.  Until then, see you in another life, brother.

The New Man in Charge

Review: In little under twelve minutes, Lost gave us a tiny little treat.  I can’t possibly see this as the “final” moment on Lost (that deserves to belong forever after to “The End”), but it is a nice little nugget for Lost fans and answered a few hanging chads of the story.  Namely, why did the Dharma pallets still come to the Island, why the fascination with the polar bears, what was the deal with the pregnancies being fatal, and most importantly, what happened to Walt.  It turns out, Ben served as the new Richard Alpert under Hurley, and he went back for the final castaway, Walt.  Personally, I loved the circular attitude of the episode, as it rounded out the only other character that needed to go back-Walt (at that point, every ticket-holder of Oceanic 815 had had the option of going back if they so chose, and proving Lost’s point, every single one of them did go back to the Island).  Was this necessary?  Probably not, but I’m not one to look a gift horse in the mouth.  And while it was a tad bit tongue-in-cheek, Benjamin Linus’s stare, that cold mental ward, and final resolutions all made it a worthwhile investment.

Hurley Dude Count: 2, both toward Walt

Unanswered Questions: What was Walt’s new role on the Island?  How could he help Michael on the Island?

Best Line: “All right, before I go, I’ll let you each ask a question, just one.  So, make it count,” –Ben, echoing what all of the fans wish they could do.

Best Moment: Ben, fearing he’s said too much.

Episode MVP: Ben, who manages to show that his new redemption did not exempt him from his Island elitism (only one question, oh peons).

Ranting On...Lost's Future

When it comes to every beloved franchise, whether it be books, TV, or film, the question usually becomes "how do we expand it?"  It's worth noting that the question is rarely "should we expand it," even if that should be part of the consideration, and six years out from Lost it's a question that probably should be on the table.

After all, fan demand for followups has never been higher and capitulating to those demands (regardless of whether or not it's good for the series) is something we constantly are seeing.  Sometimes we see a series rebranded or extended in some fashion like Arrested Development, Full House, and Boy Meets World.  Other times, it comes in a movie (Veronica Mars, Firefly) or a comic book series (Buffy the Vampire Slayer).  JJ Abrams and Damon Lindelof have indicated that they don't really want a reboot, but that they don't have that much control over whether or not one occurs, so I think it's worth discussing whether Lost should continue on in some format other than a random week of blog posts six years after the finale.

There is a part of me that is, of course, willing to scream from the mountaintops "HELLS YES!" and I'm guessing any true fan who says an unqualified "no, I don't want it back" is lying.  As we've found out this week, there are still a number of questions that weren't explicitly answered or there were side characters who still have a host of questions surrounding them.  The idea of stepping back into this universe is unbelievably attractive to me-quite frankly re-watching all of the episodes for the first time in five years felt like an unhindered joy, just re-introducing myself with Sawyer and Kate and Eko and all of the many characters of the show that made it feel so special.  I'd be lying if I said that I didn't want to see them again.  It's half the reason I tune into Colony every single week, in fact.

But the reality is that the show truly concluded well.  I know I discussed this yesterday, but the finale answered the question of whether or not the characters had happy endings, and while some of them didn't in the world of the living (Locke, Shannon, and Libby come to mind in particular), they all had a happy ending in the sideways/limbo world, and entered into the next phase, whatever that may be, together as one.  All of the characters we would want to see again would have to have their stories rewritten to continue on with the show, or if we just started where the main timeline ended we'd have to do the series without John or Jack, which feels blasphemous.  The ending for the show was pretty much perfect in terms of emotional closure.

A reboot, or a Star Wars-level reboot, might be a possibility, of course, but even that is rife with problems.  We could see, for example, an era where Walt takes over as the Island's protector (we get the sense that he would, inevitably, be Hurley's successor), and there were a number of established children who could grow up and crash in a plane.  Take a world where Clementine, Aaron, Ji Yeon, Julian, Megan, and Charlie Hume all somehow end up on the same flight, all of whom not knowing what might be in store-Lost: The Next Class, if you will.  Throw in a couple of actors from the original series (perhaps Emilie de Ravin in old age makeup), and you have an idea that at least could make it past a board room.

But that wouldn't be Lost, and it wouldn't be what the show needs added to its lore.  The reality is that most reboots are terrible, and in some ways simply hurt the original packaging.  Even Star Wars, a film that is fun to watch, is going to give us a world where Han Solo dies at the hand of his son (sorry, I'm not doing a bloody spoiler-alert-if you wanted to see it, you would have gone by now), rather than having a noble life that continues for decades to come with Leia as we imagined.  Reboots are rarely as good as Star Trek: The Next Generation, one of the few extensions of a series that genuinely worked, and even then you had to tackle an entirely new world and change the plot in many ways.

I'm not saying I'm opposed to any sort of extension of the series, but like Harry Potter, I think the best you should be shooting for is an exhaustive encyclopedia with all of the secrets (yes, I'll buy the new HP book but I'm not very happy about it and worried Rowling is about to ruin her wonderful series).  Lost essentially already did this, but has enough inaccuracies I wouldn't be opposed to a more complete installment.  Aside from that, it feels like this story is finished.  It's sad to think we'll never go back to the Island, but we had a marvelous ride while it lasted.

Ranting On...the Lost Finale

I'm going to be honest here and admit-I never really got the hubbub surrounding the finale of Lost and why some people insisted it was terrible.  I watched the episode live, one of those rare circumstances that I actually watched a program when it was airing and not just waiting for my TiVo to catch me up (though honestly Lost was always a show I needed to watch live), and quite frankly I took the day off after the finale from work as I knew I needed a day to sort of recuperate from such an event.  I also didn't read any of the reviews for a few days after, as I wanted to go back and parcel through things, seeing if I could find a couple of clues that were lying around in the finale just waiting for me before someone cleverer pointed out to me.

So it didn't occur to me while watching that anyone could possibly be disappointed.  Any disappointment I had was with certain characters not showing up for the big goodbye (namely Mr. Eko) or them cutting a specific character's revelation (Boone and Ben in particular I wanted to catch) and having to say goodbye to the series in general.  When people started to react with absolute vitriol, saying that Damon and Carlton had wasted six years of their lives I became deeply upset, but mostly shocked-who couldn't be satisfied with this finale?

After all, we had spent years getting to know all of these characters, and they were all here, receiving happy ending after happy ending after so much heartache.  Reunions (Claire and Charlie! Sawyer and Juliet! Sun and Jin!) abounded, and we got to see a couple of questions that we truly wanted answered, namely who would make it off the island, who would stay on as its guardian, and who would die as a result of what was happening to stop the Man-in-Black from leaving.  It was all riveting stuff.

And anyone who didn't get that, I just don't really understand if we were watching the same show.  As I've pointed out multiple times this week, I too had mysteries that I wanted solved, but I had A) kind of given up hope of any of them other than the immediate "who lives" question being answered in the finale as surely that was going to be about goodbyes and nothing more and B) none of them I wanted so badly that I would ever chastise such a beautiful, heartfelt swan song for the series.  Honestly, even the ones that bug me the most (can they just publish a memoir of Charles Widmore or something?!?), I could live without knowing if it meant more time with the castaways rather than having some sort of minutia giving me details about what happened on the island.

Plus, anyone who was hoping for some grand reveal, like the Island is heaven or the source of life or something like that had too high of expectations.  Philosophers have dealt with the questions posed by Lost for centuries without coming up with definitive answers, and I think the show did a pretty decent job of pointing out how it stood on select stances, putting friendship, love, and sacrifice to a higher cause high up on the list of things that matter in a lifetime.  To not get that, and still be obsessing about who built the Statue rather than realizing that it no longer mattered in the scheme of the story is foolishness.

I'm not saying that you shouldn't go back and go through the show and its mysteries and try to solve them for yourself, or not to be a little frustrated in hindsight over a lack of a resolution as to what Daniel was studying in Ann Arbor, but don't say that it was a waste of time and don't bag on a series finale that was a cut above pretty much every other one I've seen.  Series finales are always disappointing-there's always some loose end that didn't get tied up or a happy ending you didn't ask for or that feels too neat, or perhaps you just weren't ready to say goodbye.  But Lost had a great finale, as best as could be expected, and people who say the show went on too long should perhaps self-examine for a second and realize that if you felt this kind of passion for a series, that it was so personal you needed it to be your ending, well, isn't that a sign that those six years weren't wasted?  Shouldn't you acknowledge that Lost was one of the few shows to develop such a devotion, like The Sopranos or Game of Thrones, that we envisioned its resolution for so many years it simply couldn't satisfy every single one of our dreams, and acknowledge that the finale was good on its merits, even if it wasn't the one you dreamed of in your head?

Lost: Season 6 Recaps

We are currently doing a weeklong tribute to my favorite TV show (or thing in general), the television series Lost.  For more articles about Lost week, click here.

(Editor's Notes: These episodes are judged on a curve.  Lost is my all-time favorite show and even at its worst, it's still better than pretty much anything I've ever experienced on television.  Additionally, Lost is a show that is built off of its mystique and mystery-if you haven't seen these episodes, SEE THEM NOW as they are the part of the best series ever put on television, and then come back and discuss as the spoilers are going to spring fourth like a plane onto a magical deserted island).

LAX, Parts 1 & 2 (#6.1)

Review: The season premieres on this show are typically slight disappointments.  We get the ultimate high of all the reveals and set-ups of the season finale, and then we wander slowly but steadily into the season premiere, where inevitably a new mystery pops up that distracts from the fact that we aren’t resolving anything.  This episode largely does that, and yet the result isn’t the same.  This is a great episode, epic in its scope (it’s two hours long, which helps), and though it introduces two mysteries, one interesting (sideways world) and one inevitably pointless (Dogen/Lennon/Temple), it also gives us just enough nuggets from the previous season to make up for the lack of closure.  We finally figure out just who John Locke is (and I’ll refer to him as Locke, rather than MIB for the future, as it’s just easier and also because in my mind, it’s just the terrific Terry O’Quinn), and it’s a smoky revelation.  We get the return of Boone (yippee!), Desmond (huzzah!), and Charlie (…err, sounds good!), and we realize that Hurley can communicate with Jacob.  Though it leaves a lot of windows open, it shuts enough doors to make it a superb start to our final boarding call.

Hurley Dude Count: 12

Desmond Brother Count: 1

Main Character Body Count: We lose our wonderful Juliet to the explosion

(Still) Unanswered Questions: I am so mad they randomly threw in the whole Dogen thing-what was the point of introducing a character so mysterious without ever giving the background of why. 

Best Line: “Sorry you had to see me like that,” –Locke, to Ben after he gets “angry”

Best Moment: A tough call, as the Locke/Jack introductions at the end were great, and I loved the going dutch with Juliet, but I have to give it to them exiting Oceanic 815 and landing in LAX, as if nothing had ever happened (and did it?!?)

Episode MVP: This is so spread out, it’s a tough call, but I’m giving it to my main man Locke, who manages to have emotional pull both on and off the Island.

What Kate Does (#6.2)

Review: So, what do you do when you have a nearly pitch-perfect season starter and give us a prelude to the highly-intriguing question of ‘where the hell is Claire?’  You give us one of the most routine and base episodes of the series, and certainly of the Sixth Season.  There technically isn’t anything wrong with it, other than the fact that if Dogen just explained everything to Jack, we likely wouldn’t have any of the ensuing mess, but it’s a slow and rather mundane hour by Lost standards.  All of the off-Island storyline, where Kate helps Claire and it’s revealed that she won’t be able to give up Aaron for adoption, is, well, kind of obvious.  About the only decent call-outs from this episode are Claire doing her best Annie Oakley and the heartbreaking confessions of Sawyer and his impending engagement.

Hurley Dude Count: 2

Umm…: Did Sayid become more…British with the infection?

Really?!? with John: Claire when someone holds you at gunpoint, you don’t get back in the car with them just because they give you a stuffed killer whale.

Best Line: “Private talks kind of freak me out, cuz they usually end with me doing something I don’t quite understand,” –Hurley (and how)

Best Moment: Claire coming out of the jungle is probably the tops, followed by Hurley and his zombie conversations.

Episode MVP: I have to give this one to Sawyer, who has to eat the words that he killed Juliet (or at least thinks he did), and now wants to walk the world alone.

The Substitute (#6.3)

Review: Now we’re talking.  I spent the bulk of this episode focusing, quite frankly, on the Sideways world rather than the world on the Island, a rare occurrence for me.  The reason for this was that I’ve missed our Man of Faith, Mr. Locke, and always wanted more for him than dying, alone, on a hotel room floor never realizing that he was in fact a Candidate for the job he wanted most.  I loved that the writers of the show gave him one, even if it ends up being a purgatory or a false reality-he deserved it.  I also liked the way that he targeted Sawyer first of the candidates (it’s always decent when they implore realism in the storyline), as he’s the most susceptible to the charms of a rogue conman.  The episode could have used a little bit more of Rose and Hurley (you can never have enough of either character), but overall, this was a big pick-me-up after the previous week’s banality.

The Century Club: Matthew Fox (Jack) has appeared in 100 episodes as of “The Substitute.”  He is the first to do this.

Hurley Dude Count: 2, both to Locke

(Still) Unanswered Questions: How exactly does one get crossed off the wall if someone like Miles or Kate or Claire are up there and are still alive?

Funny, Funny: I’d love to see what the show would have been like if the final candidates had ended up being Nikki, Shannon, Miles, and Tom Friendly.

Best Line: “And I’m very sorry that I killed him,” –Ben, as he delivers Locke’s eulogy, to which Lapidus correctly replied that it was the strangest funeral I’ve ever been to.

Best Moment: Much like Season 1 before it, really Season 6 is filled with a lot of iconic closing moments.  However, the best moment from this episode would have to be Locke, shining a light onto the world of the Candidates.  This is followed closely by Helen’s constant assurance that all she ever wanted, she already has.

Episode MVP: When he’s at the top of his game, it’s hard to match John Locke for emotional struggle and, in MIB form, pure enigma.  Kudos to Sawyer, Hurley, Rose, and close second place Helen, as an episode this good doesn’t just make itself.

Lighthouse (#6.4)

Review: Continuing a high, high level of excellence from the early episodes of the Sixth Season, Lost treats us to one of the most interesting hours of Jack television in a long time.  We get to see the doctor in the other world as the dreamy, distant father who is making the same mistakes as his father by trying desperately not to.  I loved this twist in the other world, and it sort of hints at the fact that Jack could in fact have a teenage son (he is 43 in real life, despite looking around 31).  Hurley is in top form in this episode, as is Jacob (you have to love the wittiness of this Island deity).  While we seem to have gotten more questions than answers, it hints at revelations to come, which is a nice step in the right direction.

Hurley Dude Count: Duding out with Jacob, he reaches 14

Really?!? with John: Jack, when you see a magical lighthouse that shows houses of people and have people’s names written on it, you don’t smash it to pieces.  The castaways always want answers, but then they do things like this to destroy them.

(Still) Unanswered Questions: So, what's the deal with David if Jack, you know, "never had kids?"  Are there any other characters in the sideways world that never existed?  Also, why hasn't anyone ever seen the Lighthouse before?

Best Line: “I’m looking cuz I’m a big fan of temples and like history and Indiana Jones stuff,” –Hurley, to Dogen

Best Moment: Hurley, talking to Dogen about how he is a Candidate, followed by Jack and his son by the bike (with pizza!)

Episode MVP: I love you Jack, but after you so impetuously smashed that Lighthouse apart, I’m giving this to your equal in this episode, Mr. Reyes.

Sundown (#6.5)

Review: Continuing the midseason high, we get thrown for a loop by those wicked Lost writers.  For those who had been following along at home, this should have followed the course of the first season, thus being a Sun-centric episode rather than a Sayid one, and the name seemed to imply that.  However, we were only treated to our lovely Korean oarswoman once in the episode, toward the end, and this was instead on the torturer in all-walks-of-life, Sayid.  I have to admit I adored this episode, more than any other thus far in the season, primarily because it showed Sayid in a way that we had never seen him before-desperate, but in control, willing to sacrifice anything for the only thing that ever made him happy.  The ending is a fascinating look at the destruction the Smoke Monster could truly unleash (compared to earlier seasons, it seems that the MIB was holding back).  The looks on the faces of Sayid, Claire, and Kate as they strolled out into the jungle-terrifying, and yet captivating.  Sayid may have discovered that he was simply a man of evil, but in doing so, he showed that the shadows of the Island may be able to win their own battles.

(Still) Unanswered Questions: Why was Dogen able to stop Sayid, if he isn’t a candidate?  Was he the leader of the Others after Locke, or an interim leader of sorts?

Best Line: “She strolled in here a couple of hours ago, looking all weird…still hot though, “ –Miles, on Claire coming out of the jungle

Best Moment: The stroll out of the temple has to just top the Smoke Monster sneaking in and pulverizing anyone without a name above the credits.

Episode MVP: Sayid, and particularly Naveen Andrews, for an acting performance that we knew he was capable of, but hadn’t showcased in several seasons.

Dr. Linus (#6.6)

Review: In what would be our final date with the vicious Benjamin Linus, we end up seeing a man who is completely broken by society, a man who, both on and off Island, must now resort to the smaller pleasures of life, as the larger ones are too far from his grasp.  I thought the catharsis in this episode was a bit too easy (choosing Alex over power in one world but not the other), but otherwise there’s nothing to complain about here.  Michael Emerson is extraordinary when he’s searching within his character’s darker soul, and finding that the well of reason for his existence has gone bone dry.  I love that the most obvious choice to go to Locke needs the least amount of convincing that he shouldn’t, perhaps because he has finally come to the point where he needs to change.  Also, the Widmore ending was a sigh of relief to those of us (okay, those of me), that thought that we may never get resolution on this front.

Get Out the Kleenex: Hurley and Jack join their crowd at the beach-I love reunions.

Hurley Dude Count: 7

Best Line: “Why would I need your money when there are a couple of jabonies under there named Nikki and Paulo who got buried alive with $8 million in diamonds on top of them,” –Miles, to Ben, giving Nikki and Paulo their final call-out

Best Moment: Multiple ones to choose from, but I have to go with Ben and Ilana in the woods in a slight nod over Linus and Alex in the Principal’s Office.

Episode MVP: I really want to give this to Ilana, as this is her best episode on the Island, but I’m going with Ben, who manages to find what he is looking for once more.

Recon (#6.7)

Review: Sawyer-centric episodes are always about the con, and so it’s mildly ironic that indeed, while Sawyer is attempting to con Widmore and Locke, it’s really he who is being conned (how much, we shall see).  I loved the Sawyer off-Island storyline considerably more than that of him on the Island.  We’ve seen Island Sawyer like this many, many times now, attempting to show everyone that he is simply a con man who looks out for Number One, but he does genuinely care for the Kates and Suns and Hurleys of the island.  A far more interesting case to be made is for the Sawyer in the Sideways world.  Here is a man who is largely broken, one who can’t lie and who lives a fairly lonely existence, with only Michael Landon and generic six-packs to keep him company.  Kudos have to go to the writers for not giving us the obvious in Juliet being the blind date, and Charlotte was a riot and quite lovely in her walk-on role.  The ending left a bit to be desired, but the Sawyer off-Island, there’s a man whose miscalculations could have made the on-Island experience a son of a...

The Century Club: Evangeline Lilly becomes the second cast member to hit 100 episodes, and the only woman to do so.

(Still) Unanswered Questions: Who is Miles’s girlfriend?  What really happened to members of Ajira 316?

Umm…: When in real life do you get someone as gorgeous as Rebecca Mader or Josh Holloway as your blind date on a setup from your sarcastic best buddy?  Why do I not get set up on these dates?

Best Line: “You got a whip?” –naughty, naughty Sawyer

Best Moment: The flirtations between Charlotte and Sawyer over dinner.

Episode MVP: I’m giving it to Sideways Sawyer, the broken lonelyheart.

Ab Aeterno (#6.8)

Review: The episode that so many of us had waited for, we finally discover the true nature of the one and only Mr. Alpert.  Perhaps the only disappointing thing about this episode is that Richard would go 150 years or so without so much as asking about Candidates and the true identity of the MIB or what Jacob’s goal on the Island truly is.  How he could be perhaps the least curious person ever, I’ll never know.  The episode itself, though, if taken as merely answering the mystery of Richard Alpert, is a doozy.  We get to see him deal with the death of his wife, his false trial (and that super creepy priest), and then his trip to the Island, with some mad fun CGI and a blow-to-the-head of the Statue.  Richard ends up being a pawn in the game between Jacob and the MIB, but he’s an interesting pawn, and unlike many of the mysteries of the Island, we get a full and complete answer to the man with the eyeliner.

Hurley Dude Count: 1

(Still) Unanswered Questions: Was Richard a candidate?  Is this why the MIB spared his life?

Best Line: “If it’s any consolation, it’s not exactly Locke,” –Ben, to Jack

Best Moment: There’s many to choose from, whether we’re considering the statue getting blown to smithereens or Jacob attacking Richard, but I think I have to settle with Jacob and Richard, in the middle of the jungle, talking about how the rest of the game will play out.

Episode MVP: With all due respect to the MIB and Jacob, I’m going to finally hand a kudo over to Richard Alpert, who gets to come to terms with his ideals of faith and heartache, and gets a true purpose from the Island, and his beloved.

The Package (#6.9)

Review: One has to wonder what would have happened to Sun and Jin if they hadn’t been separated-would they have returned for their friends?  One of those thousands of “hmm” questions from Lost.  Perhaps one of the other ones was why they ever thought the Sun language barrier storyline wasn’t just lazy plotting, stretching out a thin Sideways story with another way to prolong the reunion of Jin and Sun.  This wasn’t my favorite of the season by a long shot, which is disappointing, as I love Sun and Jin and wanted their penultimate swan song to be a beautiful trip.  Considering it’s Sun and Jin, there are some excellent moments-Sun seducing Jin, Sun running from Locke, Jin seeing Ji Yeon, but otherwise this was a detour that would have been more fun had they given us, perhaps, who the candidate amongst the Kwons was.

Get Out the Kleenex: Who didn’t tear up a little when Jin finally got to see photos of his daughter?

(Still) Unanswered Questions: Why is it that Desmond is so special?

Best Line: “Because you’re speaking,” –Ilana, on why she doesn’t believe Ben

Best Moment: I partially want to go with the run, but it really has to be the seduction of Jin-the show’s most loving couple is fun to see being less somber.

Episode MVP: I’m going to give it to Sun, for her seduction and the look on her face when she finally apologizes to Jack and yells at Richard.

Happily Ever After (#6.10)

Review: In the great pantheon of Lost, perhaps no character is so universally loved as Desmond Hume.  Sure, people adore Hurley, Locke is well-regarded, and Sawyer is an excellent adventure.  However, I dare you to find a Lost fanatic who doesn’t point blank adore our Scottish brother.  So it seems fitting that, of all the pre­-Candidate flashbacks, Desmond gets the best episode.  Taking place almost exclusively in his sideways world, Desmond is a successful playboy, escorting Charlie Pace around Los Angeles for his mortal enemy Charles Widmore.  I love the synchronicity of this episode-the marina, the protection of Charlie, the confusion upon meeting Eloise, and then the greeting of Penny.  It’s interesting to note how easily the castaways can fall back into their old life if they know what they’re “supposed to do.”  Those final moments, where Desmond sees his soulmate from every world, Penny, are kinetic.  This episode sort of was the vessel home for the final seven chapters of the series, and my it was yar.

The Century Club: Our beloved Hurley, Jorge Garcia, becomes the third actor to appear in a hundred episodes.

Hurley Dude Count: 1

Desmond Brother Count: 3, two to Charlie and one to Jack

Really?!? with John: With all due respect to Dom Monaghan, Henry Ian Cusick could have very easily gone on the brakes or overpowered him (come on, which one of them is the ripped one here?)

Best Line: “Thousands of times,” –the suddenly slutty Desmond to Charlie after Mr. Pace asks if our Scotsman has ever been in love.

Best Moment: Desmond, asking Penny for a coffee (I told you, I’m sucker for these two).

Episode MVP: I have to go with our wily Mr. Hume, who manages to combine his brilliant storylines with Charlie, Penny, Charles, Eloise, and Daniel with a sense of both confusion and underlying understanding.

Everybody Loves Hugo (#6.11)

Review: For some people, Hurley episodes oftentimes mean time to check out of whatever mystery is occurring on the island and sit back for 43 minutes of personal angst and sarcasm.  Which may be why this episode could have shocked a few people-we get to see Hurley become the first non-Desmond character to have their own personal epiphany off the Island.  Hugo, when encountered with his soulmate Libby (how else to describe someone whom he really only knew for a handful of days?), discovers that there is more to his life than chicken and philanthropy.  I love the way that the rico suave Desmond comes in and tries to cheer up Hurley as he waits for Order Number 42 of chicken, and the way that Hurley wrestles with his trust of Michael (never truly hating him, even though he has every reason).  Yes, we end up with a Jack-and-Locke centric ending, but before that, we get to have a nice farewell for the luckiest lottery winner alive.

Hurley Dude Count: 5

Desmond Brother Count: 4

Main Character Body Count: Ilana, we hardly knew ya.

(Still) Unanswered Questions: What causes the epiphanies?  How come Ben never had one?

Best Line: “You need a woman in your life Hugo, especially one who has not nursed you,” –Carmen Reyes, in the grossest and funniest line of the series

Best Moment: Hurley and Desmond, bonding over the chicken stands out the most, though I loved that Hurley finally got his picnic.

Episode MVP: Hurley, who finally found that beneath his heart of gold stood a little courage to be had.

The Last Recruit (#6.12)

Review: The final transitory episode, this was a hodgepodge of flashbacks involving the Candidates and those closest to them.  Really, we started to get resolution to the Sun and Jin storyline, we got the sibling angle of Jack and Claire established, and Sayid was arrested.  The on-Island shenanigans were just so-so-it was obvious that Jack would end up staying behind from the boat, realizing that he needed to answer to the Island before he left, and that Claire would end up on the boat (though Sayid would remain behind, for now).  And who didn’t see the Widmore double cross coming?  However, there were a lot of small moments to love here, particularly in Sideways land-I loved the way that Locke is introduced to an intensely caring (and potentially life-saving) Ben, the way that the Shepherd men swagger around the law firm and hospital with an identical swing (the casting director deserves major kudos for pulling off that same sort of bravado in Jack’s offspring), and of course, we finally got the reunion of the Kwons.  It wasn’t up to the par of the other individual episodes of the final season, but had much to lend to it.

The Century Club: Josh Holloway’s Sawyer makes his 100^th appearance.

Get Out the Kleenex: Jin and Sun finally reunite-good tear.

Hurley Dude Count: 1

Desmond Brother Count: 1

Cringe: Frank, Frank, I know you didn’t choose to do it, but “looks like someone got their voice back” is by far the cheesiest moment in Lost history.

Best Line: “We’re gonna ditch Locke-you, me, Jack, Hurley, Sun, and that pilot that looked like he stepped off the set of a Burt Reynolds movie,” –Sawyer, giving us his best nickname of the sixth season

Best Moment: Sun and Jin at long last, just above the Shepherd men saunter.

Episode MVP: I’m giving this one to Claire, actually, who manages to be compelling and broken as she’s discarded in both worlds.

The Candidate (#6.13)

Review: I can genuinely say, with only three episodes left in the series at “The Candidate,” that the show had never quite gotten me, emotionally, like this episode (until the finale, but at that point I saw it coming at least).  I’d sat through character deaths, I’d sat through disappointment and betrayal, but this was too much.  Watching as Sun, Jin, and Sayid disappeared into the ocean deep, the stuff of one of the most diabolical schemes in tv history, I felt like that innocence still left in the show had slowly vanished, and the harsh reality was we were all taken, at least a little bit, by this long con.  In the long pantheon of Lost, this is the moment where we realized that evil could indeed win, and that we may have to sacrifice our beloved characters in order to defeat it.  The screams of Claire as she’s abandoned, the look of malice on Locke’s face as the sub begins to sink, and those final moments where Sayid sacrifices himself, the Kwons are drowned and pulled apart, and our four survivors bury themselves in grief-never again would we so trust the producers, or doubt that Lost can make masterworks.

Main Character Body Count: Goodbye Sayid, Sun, and Jin.

Best Line: “There is no Sayid,” (Jack) and “I will never leave you again,” (Jin) both are spellbinding, but I’m giving this to Sayid’s, “Because it’s going to be you Jack,” as it has a huge mystery to go with the gravitas.

Best Moment: Again, it’s close, but I have to give it to the Kwons saying their goodbyes, with a close second going to Claire’s crying as they leave her behind, Locke’s evil look as he tells Claire it was for the best, and Sayid running away.

Episode MVP: Screw trying to avoid ties-Sayid, Sun, and Jin have been with me since the beginning, and they deserve the kudos for making this not just be riveting, but for making their characters so cherished that it was actually physically painful to watch them slip into the abyss.

Across the Sea (#6.14)

Review: Personally, I think we could have seen this episode over an entire season (and not just because I heart Alison Janney to pieces).  It was amazing to see such a complete storyline, with characters we had known since the beginning (Adam and Eve), and yet we haven’t known at all.  It was a brave choice by the writers to still not give us all of the answers-I knew that they wouldn’t quite explain the soul of the Island, and how Jacob must protect it, but I figured we’d get a name for the MIB (there goes my he’s Aaron through time theory).  At times this enigma worked-I think we all need to settle that there will be loads of unanswered questions at the end of this, and times (such as with the Rules), it didn’t.  It was going to be almost impossible for the writers to truly get across the thing that they are protecting-the Island may represent hope or goodness or humanity itself, but the attempt was noteworthy as perhaps the best part of the episode outside of the “Adam and Eve” resolution.  All things considered, this answered more than it posed, and gave us a definitive portrait of those two souls that brought our castaways to the caves, and us to this adventure.

(Still) Unanswered Questions: What is the MIB’s name (don’t give me that he never had one)?  How did the Island guardianship begin? 

Best Line: “One day you can make up your own game and everyone will have to follow your rules,” –MIB to Jacob

Best Moment: Jacob burying his brother and mother in the cave.

Episode MVP: The Man in Black, who shows his humanity before the cave strips him of it.

What They Died For (#6.15)

Review: The penultimate episode, I’m going to say right out front, that I was going to love because it was my second-to-last dance with my castaways.  Hurley, Kate, Jack, Sawyer, Ben-seeing them just traipsing across the jungle is a joy at this point, knowing that I’ll only see it one more time.  I’m impartial enough to realize that there were some flaws-I think that Sawyer or Kate would have objected and also tried to have been Jacob, and also, where the hell did Miles disappear to?  But that doesn’t matter in the long run, as we finally got answers-we figured out how they became candidates, how they were crossed off (or at least as good of an explanation as we'd ever get), and what they need to do to be successful.  As we entered toward the end of the on-Island world, we were left with just eight of the castaways (goodbye Charles and Zoey) to fight against a force of pure evil.  Off-island, we got the setups we were dying for, though almost no resolution-freed Kate, freed Sayid, the promise of David’s mom (come on, Juliet!!!), and the appearance of two of my lost castaways-Ana Lucia and Danielle!  And also the promise of our final tour of the Island.

Delicious: I will always remember the voice of ET’s mother as they welcome the final episode onto our televisions in the trailer.

Best Line: “And I thought he had a God complex before,” –Sawyer saying what we were all thinking a little bit (come on) about our handsome doc.

Best Moment: Ben, shooting Charles Widmore (so much for the rules) just trumping Ben and Danielle at dinner and the return of Anna Lu-Lu (thanks Sawyer) who isn’t ready but I can’t wait for the day she is.

Episode MVP:  Ben, who managed to survive another encounter with the Smoke Monster, and get his revenge

The End (#6.16)

Review: And so, it slips quietly into the night, after the most emotionally draining episode of the series.  Seriously, I think what the writers decided was that they wanted more than the mystery was to say goodbye to our characters, are beautiful characters falling in love and realizing the beautiful journey they took on the Island-the Sideways world ended up being a deeply rewarding and rich experience, as the characters suddenly realize love and happiness-I honestly sobbed from the opening scene to the final, every realization getting me choked up.  I think the fact that they sacrificed a large number of mysteries to give the actors a chance to stretch their muscles and really show how much the characters meant to the audience was a bold but rewarding choice-honestly, I’d have rather seen one last moment between Claire and Charlie or Juliet and Sawyer than to have seen who exactly created that statue.  There are so many things to discuss in the episode-the small things (Bernard and Rose getting Desmond out of the well-huzzah!, the fact that Hurley ended up as the Island guardian, with Ben as his Number Two, the beautiful goodbye between Ben and John, forever), it’s difficult to sum it up in a tiny little review.  All I can truly say is-magical, inspiring, and fade away.

Main Character Body Count: Jack, going into the abyss.

The Century Club: Terry O’Quinn becomes the 5^th and final person to hit 100.

Get Out the Kleenex: The entire bloody episode-I can think of at least ten times I cried during the episode, and some where I was balling throughout the entire commercial break (I think the most were the revelations of Jin/Sun, Charlie/Claire/Kate, Sawyer/Juliet, John Locke and Jack closing his eye).

Best Line: “We’ve been waiting for you,” –John Locke, and so right he is.

Best Moment: Impossible-though I loved the eye close the most.

Episode MVP: Jack, who finally had his truly cathartic experience and saw that his life had a purpose, and that he could truly be happy.  Followed by well, everyone.

Best Episodes

1. The Candidate
2. The End
3. Sundown
4. Happily Ever After
5. Ab Aeterno

Worst Episodes

1. What Kate Does
2. The Package
3. The Last Recruit

Multiple MVP's

1. Ben (2)
2. Hurley (2)
3. Locke (2)
4. Sun (2)
5. Sayid (2)
6. Sawyer (2)

Best Moments

1. Jack Closes His Eyes (The End)
2. John Locke Realizes (The End)
3. Sun and Jin Say Goodbye (The Candidate)
4. Juliet & Sawyer Realize (The End)
5. Ben and John Say Goodbye (The End)
6. Jin & Sun Realize (The End)
7. Kate Says Goodbye to Jack Forever (The End)
8. Strolling Out of the Temple (Sundown)
9. Jack and Christian (The End)
10. Charlie, Kate, & Claire Realize (The End)

Received MVP in Every Season: Hurley, Sawyer, Locke, Sun

Number of A+/A Episodes: (“Sundown,” “Ab Aeterno,” “Happily Ever After,” “The Candidate,” and “The End”)