Room 237

In my previous post on Eyes Wide Shut I talked about this documentary focusing on Kubrick's possible hidden messages in The Shining. It's still not available on DVD yet, but you can rent it on iTunes. Regardless if this isn't actually in my back-log, it's so fucking intriguing I just have to post on this. 

This documentary breaks The Shining and its messages down into nine parts, and I really don't know where to start on this. I feel as though I could talk forever on these subject matters. Debate on them endlessly as I'm sure the commentators of this documentary do on a regular basis. I'll just focus on the most likely theory to be true, the least likely theory, and the one that's the most entertaining to me.

First is the idea that The Shining is a message about the genocide of the Native Americans as the colonists moved across this country. This seems completely believable to me and there are plenty of signs to indicate that Kubrick truly intended this message to connect to audiences. The hotel is filled with Native American artwork and paintings and tapestries. There's also a specific reference to Calumet Baking Power in the kitchen's pantry.

Calumet is a Native American peace pipe. In this scene, the Calumet symbolizes Danny's trust with the caretaker Dick. It's shown again when Jack Torrance gets locked in the pantry after going crazy and makes a pact with the demons to let him out only in that scene all of the Calumet canisters are off kilter indicating a flawed treaty. 

There's also some mention to the movie being a connection to WWII and the Holocaust. This one is a little harder for me to buy, but possible. The number 42 is thrown around a bit which is indicative to 1942 when (as the commentators in the documentary claim) the Holocaust began. Plus Jack uses a German typewriter - typewriter could indicate power having the ability to make lists, possibly making list for those entering concentration camps. This seems like a bit of a stretch, but there could be something to it. There's also this photo that ends the movie:

As the haunting photo that shows Jack immortalized in the hotels old 1920's party as it fades into a close-up of him. During the fade, if you freeze it, it's suppose to look like Jack Torrance is actually Hitler. Think this is grasping at straws. Cool theory, though, but I straddle on the fence at this Holocaust allegory.

The next theory that I really don't believe is that this movie was Kubrick's attempt to confess that he filmed the moon landing. Note: It's not that we never landed on the moon, just that the footage we have is faked. This theory mostly involves the room 237. In the novel it's 217. Kubrick claims they changed it because the hotel they filmed had a 217 and didn't want to scare people from staying in it. Commentators in the documentary say this is false. If you call the hotel, they'll explain no such room exists. So they claim 237 is the name of the soundstage the moon landing was filmed on, plus the distance from the Earth to the moon was 237,000 miles (the was the supposed number used at the time before more accurate lasers calculated it to be closer 239,000 miles). Then when Danny checks out the room, he's wearing an Apollo 11 sweater. And, the key to room 237 is spelled out as "ROOM No 237". The documentary speculates that "o" on number is meant to be ignored and and when rearranging the letters you can spell MOON ROOM. 

First, I don't buy that the moon landing footage is fake. So I'm looking to poke holes in these theories. All-in-all, it just seems people are reading too much into these clues. It's a really fascinating theory, but I just struggle to believe it.

Finally, the most fascinating point the documentary makes is that the film was designed to play forwards and backwards at the same time. You can actually overlay the film playing in both directions and see some fascinating imagery. First there's the opening/ending:

The title is that of the photo where Jack is frozen for all time, trapped with all the demons in the hotel. In this frame, it's almost like a postcard inviting the viewers to stay with the ghouls  and ghosts of the hotel. 

Then we have Dick warning Danny of the horrors of the hotel while you have Jack first going crazy as he chases Wendy up the staircase before she strikes him with the baseball bat. Cool imagery. Note: The knives placed to look like their about to strike Danny. 

The two store room scenes link up exactly. When Danny and Wendy are introduced to the room overlays when Jack becomes imprisoned there by Wendy after falling into complete madness. 

The scene where Jack is in the blood-red bathroom talking to Grady (the former caretaker who chopped up his family) when he converts him to kill his family, their mouths are perfectly  encapsulated in the TV that Wendy and Danny are watch. Note: What's on TV is called The Summer of '42. Another nod to the reoccurring numer of the Holocaust. 

Then there's the typewriter mixing with the labyrinth. Both scenes, either when Jacks working or when Wendy discovers that whole "No work and no play..." repetition is overlaid with the maze garden. Great symbolism of the typewriting being Jack's window as he gets lost in his madness.

They go on and on. This intrigues me so much I want to watch this whole overlaying thing for myself. Hopefully I can find this online somewhere.

To wrap up, I'm left with this one final thought: Could Stanley Kubrick really be that much of a genius to have intentionally planned all of these messages in his film? (Still plenty I haven't mentioned.) I think only partly. I don't disagree that he's a genius. A true master filmmaker. But I believe that this documentary more displays man's ability to find truth wherever they want. The room key symbolizing the MOON ROOM seems like a huge leap on logic to me. And to think that Kubrick intentionally planned for this movie to play forwards and backwards with one another... I mean, If he really sat down and tried to do that, I think it would make him literally go mad - not unlike Jack Torrance. I think he's a perfectionist with the camera. Always made sure shots lined up, so when played on top of one another, we'll see things fall in place in interesting positions. However, of all the myths buried in this film, I think there might be some truth to the allegories of the demise of the Native Americans. Maybe even the Holocaust. All the other imagery, the labyrinth, the power of the typewriter, the knives above Danny, various others, are intended to subconsciously invoke fear or confusion that play in concert with the haunting storyline.

One truly fascinating element that Kubrick achieved was filming the layout of the hotel. There's all these mistakes in its construction that makes it impossible for some rooms to exist. And Kubrick does all the long, continuous shots to help lead the audience around only to make them feel lost and confused. Trapped even. It's a brilliant technique that makes you feel uncomfortable that these characters are already in a world that lacks logic and normal physics. Reminiscence of the horror I felt reading House of Leaves and that strange corridor that constantly changed to the point that story's characters would spend days there lost in darkness. 

My only beef with Kubrick's genius in this film, and I know I've been rambling on for a bit here  so I'll wrap up, is that bear scene. If people remember, at the end when Wendy begins to see the hotel in all of its madness, she sees man in a bear suit giving oral to some other guy.

This makes sense in the book as King tells the story of Jack going crazy and dancing in a ballroom where all these demon are being depraved. Although it's been a while since I've read it, there might have been something directly related to a man in a bear suit. It's just weird that Kubrick would include this seeing as he departed greatly from King's novel to begin with. I mean, the labyrinth isn't even involved in the book. Plus Kubrick made many indications that he wanted nothing to do with King's original work. Even fought to keep him away from the script. So, no clue why this scene was included. And the documentary makes no mention of it.

Still, this documentary is fascinating and definitely makes me rethink my stance on Kubrick films. I may never love them in the sense of how I love Star Wars or Evil Dead, but I'm certainly going to give all of his movies another watch. Even if intentional or not, I'm excited to think I might find some new hidden messages in connection to some far off shit.

Zero Dark Thirty

I'm desperately trying to catch up on all of biggest films from the last year. Zero Dark Thirty (along with Skyfall) where two films I was desperately trying to catch a pre-screening of before leaving Sony in the fall. Alas, these films were heavily under lock-and-key. Then it just breezed by me in theaters (not Skyfall, though). Finally, I got my hands on a copy of this film and am slowly checking off my list of all the 2012 films I needed to see. 

The film is decent. Many people I've spoken to about it have loved it. I'll admit, watching the torture and interrogation scenes the fill the first act is some pretty brutal stuff. Not Saw brutal, but after hearing about waterboarding for years then seeing it performed in a realistic manner is some intense shit. And the final scene - the storming of Bin Laden's compound - was riveting. Still, there was some pieces of this film that lost me. 

One main detail that pulled me out of the movie were the US intelligence characters' banter involving swarms of middle-eastern names. This really only happens in the first act, but it made it incredibly hard to figure out who was on first base. The intelligence team is trying to track down Bin Laden by uncovering his curriers/contacts. In this process they spit out various names here and there, over and over again. My head spins. I had no clue who or what they were going after at that point. They tried to help guide the audience through this my inserting title cards between the scenes that highlights what the itelligence team was focused on. They put their main target's name right up on screen for everyone to see and understand. Yet, still, I get lost. But this comes from a guy who still fails to pronounce bolognese (I say "bo-log-nes-si") every time I go out for pasta. Plus I repeated Spanish level 2, three times. Foreign cultures and languages are just lost on me. 

The film clocks in at a little over two and a half hours. A bit on the long side, yet, it didn't really feel that way. The last scene, as I already said, is pretty fascinating. It felt like it took place in only five minutes when in reality I bet it was closer to 30. I also applaud the film for never actually showing Bin Laden's face (either alive or dead). The story revolves around one agent's concentration on the manhunt. Even putting aside that this is a true story, or the fact that no one should profit from an image of Osama, I liked just watching this woman's reaction to her victory. They made it her story. The film ends on her face, preparing to fly out of the Middle East, as tears well up in her eyes. Smart and intriguing way to frame this story. 

Not my favorite film of the past year, but definitely worth a watch if you're curious about checking it out. 

Batman: The Dark Knight Strikes Again

Good, but not great.

With its predecessor (The Dark Knight Returns) being such an amazing novel, this sequel has a lot to live up to. Unfortunately, it struggles to pass muster. And there's some jarring reasons to why I suffered a bit to get through this. 

First, the story. In the prequel we have a world where all the superheroes have been chased away by the people (similar to what happened in The Incredibles). The only one left is Superman, now a lackey for the US government. So when Wayne decides to return as Batman, it's a fairly straight story of him reclaiming Gotham, fighting the old nemeses of his universe, and finally concluding with a showdown a Superman who's lost his way. Gripping and simple to follow. In this take, Miller pushes the story to the next level. Basically the novel is supersaturated with heroes and villains from the DC universe. You've got your Justice League squad, but then Wayne begins encountering a bunch of heroes that I have no clue how who they are with very little introduction to help the uneducated reader to understand who's who. 

Side note: In an attempt to release a former villain who they need to join their side (Plastic Man - a guy who can morph his body into anything he can conceive) they break into Arkham Asylum. There's a litte side story here claiming that patients of Arkham gained control of the building years ago. The city kept them locked in while meeting some of their demands. Mostly TV's and entertainment equipment. When the police asked if they needed food, the inmates responded that there was still plenty of hostages to eat. Haunting. Wish they could have incorporated that more into the story. Shoulda, woulda, coulda. 

My other issue with the story is that it felt very disjointed. There's a couple different plot lines running around, which is fine, but how Miller switches to one storyline to the next can get really confusing. I'll blame a bit of this on the illustrations. Miller pencils everything, and, frankly, he's just not my cup of tea. His style is abstract and chaotic. If you have a story that's heavily layered with a vast array of characters all on different missions, maybe make the visuals a little easier to follow. One in particular is near the conclusion. Lex Luthor is about to destroy the world via satellite weapons that will reign Hell down on Earth. Then Green Lantern does... something(?) that saves the day. There's basically 5 panels of green light everywhere. Luthor is screaming in his defeat. Then we cut back to the green lantern who now holds the world in his hand - either he got really big or the world got really small. Regardless, it's really difficult to decipher what the fuck is happening even after rereading the storyline through several times. 

The disjointed story and abstract illustrations aside, there are still some really cool moments throughout the book. Batman and Superman duke it out again, right at the beginning. Batman kicks his ass once again. Not only that, but makes a giant fool of him, sending him crawling out of his cave a broken man. Batman goes around freeing heroes who have been imprisoned by the government. For instance, we find the Flash stuck in some turbine where he's been imprisoned to run like a hamster in a wheel to generate electricity for eastern America. Interesting idea. The only character that really confused me was the Green Lantern. Even though Hal Jordan is a human, the story randomly cuts to some weird ass creatures in another universe/planet. And it's the Green Lantern in another form... with another family... in a place that he now calls home... I mean, check it out for yourself.

It's only till you get a few pages in that the green alien on the dinosaur tells his wife and child to close their eyes and he transforms to the Green Lantern and flies off into the sky to return to Earth where his help is needed. It's so confusing to understand that this was suppose to be the Hal as the Green Lantern. I dwelled on this for quite a while. I mean, I get if all super heroes abandon Earth to find new homes. Hal goes to some strange alien planet. Then changes his look and meets and alien woman to marry; fine. But he has a fucking kid? How does that work?! He's human! Shouldn't the kid by a hybrid or an abomination of some sorts? I'm sure this is bothering me way more than is should, but I can't shake lack of logic in this. Why couldn't Miller just have him chill at the intergalactic Green Lantern Corps HQ? Whatever, I'll leave this be... Still... Ugh.

I'll wrap this up. You have to read this if you've already read and enjoyed The Dark Knight Returns, but - for me - it clearly doesn't measure up. Still, there's plenty to enjoy and stakes are raise very high. Cities are destroyed. Heroes die. Superman and Wonder Woman's daughter is introduced - she kicks ass. There's also a very cool idea that Batman raises. He claims that corrupted corporations now rule the world and it's all his fault. He spent far too long focusing on street thugs while CEOs built their powerful empires entirely unnoticed. Hence Lex Luthor being one of the main villains in this story. Plus there's one very surprising twist villain at the end that's a fun payoff. 

I'll leave you with the last panel that gives hope to Miller possibly doing one final Dark Knight story. The Bat is still alive after he blows up his cave and - despite his appearance - is feeling better than ever!

Eyes Wide Shut

...What?

Where to start? I guess I should first begin with the fact that I'm not a huge Kubrick fan. Respect the guy. Believe that he's one of the greatest filmmakers of all time. Still, I've just never been really hooked on his films - from those that I've seen - except for The Shining. That I love. In fact there's a new documentary out, Room 237 (96% on RottenTomatoes), exploring the hidden theories and mythos behind that particular movie. Really want to see that. With that in mind, I decided to dive into another Kubrick film I've been meaning to see for quite a while. No, not Dr. Strangelove - although still on my list. It's Eyes Wide Shut. 

After seeing this, the only thing that comes to mind is... What?

This is one of those films I should definitely watch several times to truly grasp what it is Kubrick is trying to say, or to even establish my own views on the story. I'll try to break down some theories in my ramblings below, but I'm sure with more time I'll think differently on this film. 

In a nutshell, this film explores the hardships and temptations of infidelity in a long-term marriage. In a way, it's a sexual odyssey. So we have Kidman and Cruise (remember when they were an actual item?) as a married couple for nine years. They're wealthy NY socialites, where Cruise plays a doctor who makes house calls to the super rich. The film starts at a Christmas party where each person a slightly seduced by different people. Nothing physical happens, but the sexual tension and temptation in the film is set. Not long after, while Cruise and Kidman and smoking some weed in bed together, Kidman reveals a fantasy about making love to some naval officer while sleeping with Cruise about a year ago. Needless to say, this hurts him. Suddenly the phone rings and Cruise is off to check in on a patient emergency. And so begins his sexual odyssey...

Cruise bounces around to a couple different sexual predicaments during the long night. The most famous being that legendary sexual cult/orgy that almost earned the film an NC-17 rating back in 1999. To be clear, it's really not sexual. It's creepy and haunting. Everyone's identity is hidden, forced to wear parlor masks that are actually quite terrifying (I know what I'm going as for Halloween this year!) while they watch or take part in various sexual acts.  Cruise only watches, roaming from room to room until he is caught. It seems like they might try to kill him before one of the woman (we don't know who it is at the time) sacrifices herself to save him. Cruise is let free, and so begins the second half of the film where he tries and uncover what the fuck just happened to him.

This part of the movie I really enjoyed. A compelling mystery to figure out what the hell just happened. Everywhere Cruise goes for information, the cult seems to be one step ahead, passing him messages to leave it alone, go home. I won't reveal the true ending, but I will say I was disappointed that it didn't turn out in a more conventional method. You have to remember, this is a movie about the hardships of marriage... not a mystery on some sex cult lurking in the shadows of NY. 

So what theories are to be taken away from this complicated film? I have no clue. I've been searching around online, stumbled across various articles dealing with sociology, principles of humanity, or clues that the sex cult might have something to do with the Illuminati (what doesn't belong to the Illuminati nowadays?), but either the articles are too damn long to read in one sitting or they're too damn crazy. Here's the only thing I somewhat believe... it's all a dream.

Yes, the whole "it was only a dream" bit. There's evidence to believe that as this couple faces troubles in their marriage, they might have explored the depravities of human sexuality entirely from within. For instance, when Cruise returns from his night out at the crazy orgy cult, he wakes his wife from a nightmare. She explains the nightmare and her story is basically her being one of the prostitutes at the orgy. An eerie moment in the film. Then, at the end, Cruise returns home late at night, once again, and finds his parlor mask (something he thought he lost) laying on his pillow beside his sleeping wife. It's never explain how it got there. Doesn't seem the wife put it there or even knew about it. Regardless, he breaks down in tears, wakes his wife, and confesses everything. With the mask laying comfortably on his pillow, it just gives the impression that Cruise could have been taking this journey subconsciously. Totally from a dream.

Anyways, as some would put it: The truth shall set you free. That seems the one fact that gives hope to their relationship. They both now can trust one another, or maybe they both understand one another at a deeper, more intimate level. Just being honest at the fact that they suffer from temptation now and then. It's hurtful, but it's not deceitful. And, I guess, I would like to think that's a huge part of love and marriage. Discovering who really are at the core of your being and sharing it. The film ends with Kidman saying something along the lines that she's not quite sure how everything will turn out. The only thing they can do now is fuck. 

I'm sure there are much more profound ways you can unpack this story - in fact, I guarantee it - but in terms of sheer entertainment, this film is just not for me. I'm a simple man of simple tastes. Films with philosophical allegories just don't do it for me. Sure, I'm glad I watched it, but I'd rather see Marty McFly struggle to reach 88mph in the DeLorean before the bolt of lightning strikes than watch this again. 

To each their own, I suppose. 

Ico

The more I played the game Ico, the more I thought that this would be an increibly easy game to describe. So many third person adventure games are so loaded with cutscenes, missions and collectibles, but Ico has nothing like that- there's a simple story, simple gameplay, and just a whole lot of relatively simple puzzles. The premise involves a young boy (Ico) born with horns, who is shunned from his village and held captive in an abandoned castle. After breaking free from his cell, he runs into a girl (Yorda) who speaks a language he does not understand, but communicating through gestures and calls the two work together to escape the castle. Ico is the more mobile of the two, and is the one players control- he can do just about every action in the game, as well as drag Yorda along in whatever direction he chooses. Yorda on the other hand can't climb ropes, attack enemies (all of which aside from the final boss are exactly the same), or jump large gaps, but unlike Ico she has some sort of spiritual connection to the castle that allows her to open up doors telepathically. Clearly, the game is based on the 'teamwork' mentality, as it's impossible to get far at all without bringing Yorda with you. And in my opinion, it worked. You could call the entire game one long escort mission, but that would be doing it a disservice. Yorda is relatively easy to protect, and you can only reach a 'game over' screen in two ways- failing to protect Yorda from enemies, or having Ico fall a great distance. Enemies won't even try to hurt Ico! Like I said before, the combat and puzzles are all fairly simple and forgettable; even the scenery, beautifully updated in HD for the remake I played, starts to get old pretty quickly. The whole point of the game seems to be to truly emulate 'companionship'- Yorda can't even speak to Ico, but she's his only friend inside this huge, mostly empty castle. You lose her for a brief period towards the end of the game, and the loss is truly felt, unlike in other games where you'd be thankful to not have to defend some AI companion anymore. While the game was successful in this way though, I can't ignore that almost all of the gameplay involved looking at the same objects and fighting the same enemies over and over. There's no depth to the game beyond your first play. Still though, it's an experience unlike any other game I've played, and is one of the classic examples brought up in the whole games-as-art debate. I recommend playing through it, but don't expect to be blown away by brilliance; it's a game that's subtle with its storytelling.

Big Love: Season 5

And that's curtains for the Henrickson clan! I hate to be brief here - usually I can go on and on when a series ends - but I'm kind of at a loss for opinions. For one thing, I didn't like this season as much as the previous one, which is the first time that's happened in my history with Big Love. For another, it had such an abruptly terrible resolution to its series finale. I mean, there are twist endings and shocking events, and there's even the infamous Sopranos cut-to-black ending-out-of-nowhere, but this? Wow. Perhaps a new low for an otherwise decent dramatic cable series. Not only were plenty of melodramatic arcs not really resolved, but the final fifteen minutes and one event in particular just came on so, so abruptly. It almost feels like the writers were halfway done with the episode before being told, "hey, this is the final episode." It was mellow but sloppy. Oddly restrained, and then miles over the top.

In the end, Big Love was a decent show and I'm glad I took the time to watch it. It wasn't one of HBO's finest efforts, but it probably represents the best of the network's post-Sopranos/Wire pre-Boardwalk/Game of Thrones rut. (What else was there from 2008 to 2010? True Blood? Entourage?) I expected more from the finale and the final season in general, but that's a testament to the extent to which I had come to respect the show as time went on. And by the way, although I keep saying I liked it more and more as time went on, that doesn't mean I disliked the first season. It served its mostly introductory purpose entirely well.

I guess for now it's back to Six Feet Under. Fine by me.

Bully

It's funny, despite Grand Theft Auto being one of the biggest series in video games, we've had a scant two posts from the entire series- Stan and I both posted Chinatown Wars within a few hours of eachother back in January 2010. Rockstar games has popped up a many times since then with two Red Dead Redemption loggings, two more for L.A. Noire, one for May Payne 3, and now a second instance of Bully. Isn't it odd how much we've avoided their flagship series and instead played lots of one-offs?

Anyway, Bully. I led off this post with a paragraph on the Grand Theft Auto series because it's impossible to talk about this game without comparing Bully to those. The gameplay is very similar, but it's the setting that's the biggest change- dropping the grit of the big city for a charming little boarding school. Teenage protagonist Jimmy Hopkins is dumped off by his mother at the start of the schoolyear and it becomes obvious that he'll be stuck here for the next nine months. Jimmy quickly learns that the school is ruled by cliques who are constantly bullying eachother and generally making life horrible for everyone enrolled at Bullworth Academy, so he sets out to take over each clique in order to bring some peace and ends up ruling the school in the process. Over the course of the schoolyear Jimmy completes missions for the nerds, greasers, townies and more, but of course they're mostly inspired by classic high-school mischief rather than the brutality of GTA. Spray graffiti on town hall! Shove a nerd in a locker! Steal a teacher's supply of alcohol! Sure, now and then you need to resort to real physical violence but no one ever gets shot or dies or anything. As such it's hard for Bully to really rise above being anything but a watered down albeit funnier GTA clone. It's a fun game to play throughout its medium length, but I'm not clamoring for a sequel or anything.

JFK

Why I bought it: Radomsky introduced me to this movie in 2004. When I saw that it came out on blu-ray with the great "digibook" packaging, I had to have it.

Thoughts: This movie is 205 minutes. Just think about that. 3 hours and 25 minutes! It's so long, but I was on the edge of my seat the entire time I saw it (for the second time!). It helped that I watched it in Dallas hours after going to the book depository and walking through the sixth floor JFK Assassination museum. Staring out the window through which Oswald supposedly shot the President was truly memorable and I knew I had to watch this movie again. Tim, Heather and Danielle had not seen it before so it was only fitting. This movie takes a bunch of facts about the case and fills in the blanks and creates a specific explanation for the assassination. Is it accruate? Almost assuredly not. But it does mix in enough facts to get you to question what really happened. Oliver Stone is criticized for movies like this, but damn if it's not entertaining. I defy anyone to watch this movie and then not immediately spends a few hours googling the assassination. I'm a sucker for conspiracies and damn if this isn't the best movie about a conspiracy ever made. Still, this movie is awesome because of it's subject matter. I'm not sure how much credit should be given to Oliver Stone and company and how much should just be given to the true events. Anyway, the cast is amazing and I really like Kevin Costner as Jim Garrison. If you haven't seen this movie, do yourself a favor and see it. I swear the 3+ hours won't feel that damn long.

Should I have bought it: Besides the fact that I bought it and then didn't watch it for four years, yes.

Big Love: Season 4

Once again, Big Love has gotten even better. I know I spent my last post talking about how the stakes had been raised, but Season 4 busts out some even bigger guns. Homosexuality, suicide, gang-style executions in Mexico, incest, banishment, infertility, blackmail - seriously, the shit has hit the fan and then some. By the end of this season, with just one more remaining, it's clear that things are not going to end well for the Hendrickson family. But in the interest of mixing things up, let me address two things I'm not loving. The first is that this season may have teetered a bit too far toward "ridiculous" with some of its story arcs. Ridiculous is better than boring, but come on, gang-style executions in Mexico? This used to be a story about a quirky family in the conservative Utah suburbs. I'm not complaining. I like crazy melodramatic Big Love a lot more than I liked quirky family sitcom Big Love. But if this show amps it up any harder next season, it'll be a full blown soap opera. Secondly, and more importantly, I'm just not a fan of the show's protagonist, Bill Hendrickson. Not every drama needs a complicated anti-hero like Walter White, Don Draper, or Tony Soprano at its center, but holy crap is this guy a snooze. I'm not sure if it's Bill Paxton's performance - I've never really disliked him in anything else, but then, what does that say? - or just the totally bland way he's written. I suppose if the idea is to paint him as an everyman, you can't give him much of a personality, but man, this guy lacks strengths, weaknesses, vices, skills - he just doesn't do anything. While his wives, his kids, his friends, and his rivals all plot and scheme and make mistakes, he just kind of steps trough it all, ineptly and without much of a reaction. Hey, fine. The characters around him are compelling enough to keep the show exciting. But Bill? Bill is a blank piece of paper.

Now, before I go, I want to bring something else up. Here are the opening credits for the first three seasons of Big Love:

Light-hearted. Fun. They're compelling and interesting, but they simply depict the four spouses getting along and skating around, then looking for each other in a sea of white, then sitting down for a group dinner. All set to the Beach Boys. Now, contrast that intro with this one, new in Season 4:

Dark. Desperate. And everyone is falling. Perhaps apart and away from one another. The symbolism is a little blatant, but I really appreciate the new intro; its tonal shift directly reflects that of the show itself. This is no longer a fun little series about the wacky adventures of a polygamist family, but one about isolation, regret, and drifting away from the life and people you've known and loved. Pretty good stuff!

The Beyonders: Chasing the Prophecy

This book was a trial run for me. I pre-ordered this book from Amazon days before it was to be released. In the end I was pleased with the way they handled the preorder. They delivered my book in the early hours of the day it was to be released and didn't subtract the money from my debit account until it had been delivered. I'm not sure as to the exact moment it was delivered but it was certainly there when I woke up in the morning. Ok, enough of this rambling time to get down to the book.

I had guessed that the second book was boring and that it's best attribute was building off the first story to prep for the final book to be awesome. I was right. This book was genuinely awesome. It lived up to most of my expectations, the story took interesting twists, the author was not afraid to kill characters and it delivered a range of emotions.

In short the second book ended with a prophecy from the last known seer and it detailed the way to defeat the dark emperor Maldor. The heroes are split into different groups and given their individual tasks and the room for error is non existant. This book outlines those tasks as they unfold under constant concern that our heroes have strayed from the correct path. I'm purposely trying to be vague because I think that several readers may take up this series if they haven't already. The book had me guessing right up till the last minute and in the end it delivered. If you like children's fantasy buy this book.