"Hairspray" review

If I took a few steps toward manhood with Live Free or Die Hard last week, I took a step back today with Hairspray, but the movie so harmless and bright that I really don't care. Based on the Broadway musical (which itself was based on the non-musical 1988 John Waters film), Hairspray is a light, frothy little movie that will at the very least put a smile on your face.

The story centers on young Tracy Turnblad (played charmingly by newcomer Nikki Blonsky), a plus-sized teenage optimist living in a segregated 1960s Baltimore. When given the chance to dance on the American Bandstand-esque TV show, she becomes involved in a racially-charged battle for integration. Along the way, she involves her mother (played humorously by John Travolta in drag) and father (an always entertaining Christopher Walken) and the hunky dancer Link Larkin (played with surprising talent by High School Musical's Zac Efron). Although race is a central theme of the movie, it is never dealt with in a heavy-handed way. When coupled with the themes of image and weight, the movie becomes more a message of tolerance; a breezy reminder to embrace those that are different and too accept their unique contributions.

The actors seem to give the movie their all, and the performances as a whole are quite good (although I couldn't really understand much of Michelle Pfeiffer's sultry singing under the actress's heavy affectations...). The music itself is cheery and catchy, and complements perfectly the film's bubble-gum tone. And I'm happy to say that this is the first movie-musical I have seen in years where it didn't seem completely obvious that the actors were being dubbed--it really felt like they were there singing live, instead of lip-syncing ( one thing I hated about The Phantom of the Opera and Moulin Rouge...).

It's not a perfect movie, and not a very deep one either, but it is high energy, and sometimes that's all a good musical needs. And while the movie won't change anyone's life, it's a step in the right direction for the modern movie-musical revival. (*** out of four)

Babies and wizards

A couple of quick updates, intended to make up for some massively blaring omissions from my blog in recent weeks:

• Wendy and I found out that we're having a baby girl! As you can see from the counter at the bottom of this page, only 157 days to go! Now if we could just decide on a name...
• Only slightly less exciting is the fact that I finished the final Harry Potter book on Monday, and though I won't spoil it here, really enjoyed it overall. I have a few minor quibbles about some of the ends that seemed too neatly tied-up, as well as a few pacing issues (could the three main characters have been in hiding for less than 600 pages, please?). But again, a most satisfying conclusion to a fantastic seven-book fantasy. I can't wait to see what Rowling has up her sleeve next.
  

"Live Free or Die Hard" review

Having now watched Bruce Willis in his latest Die Hard sequel, I can officially declare two things: Bruce Willis is one bad 50-year old butt kicker, and Live Free or Die Hard is possibly the worst title for a movie I have ever heard. Luckily, the movie is much better than its title.

Since I have never seen any of the previous Die Hard movies (I haven't ever seen the original Rocky either, so either I'm only half-a-man or just really lazy), but my Die Hard ignorance didn't really detract from my enjoyment; here's basically all you need to know: Bruce Willis plays Detective John McClane, who is apparently really unlucky and also really capable of wielding a big gun. Or causing lots of thrilling explosions. Or crashing a lot of cars. Or scowling at a lot of dumb bad guys, usually before killing them. Mindless as it is, the movie is actually pretty fun.

There are few action sequences in particular that I was sorry to see end: a noisy helicopter vs. police car chase and a horribly destructive (and awesome) showdown between a semi-truck and a really sleek-looking F-something jet (do you see how uncomfortable I am with all this man-lingo?). Lots of booms and bangs and crashes and kills (mostly bloodless), and really just a lot of good clean "manly" fun (with a heaping dose of some manly PG-13 action-movie cussing). (*** out of four)

In response to my previous post about the sanitization of movie sequels and how the trend hasn't historically helped a franchise financially...the jury's still out on this one. While Live Free or Die Hard has been well-received by critics, it will probably end up grossing roughly the same amount of money as did the franchise's previous sequel (1995's Die Hard with a Vengeance, runner up for the worst movie title ever), not including the inflation of ticket prices. So while it will likely be a profitable movie, (and possibly a franchise-savior), there's no way to know if its mild success is due to the tamer PG-13 rating.

Entertainment Weekly recently ranked the original Die Hard as the best action movie ever. Now that I've been initiated into the Die Hard-fraternity, I think it's probably time for me to check it out. Not coincidentally, I've also picked up chewing tobacco and scratching myself in public. Thanks for my introduction to manhood, Bruce!

"Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix" review

I saw HP5 last night on the IMAX 3D screen in Sandy, and wasn't disappointed. The producers have once again managed to tell a visually-arresting story while still maintaining much of the book's emotion and spirit. Although these movies continue the long-running story from previous films, it never seems like we're repeating ourselves. The performances seem fresh, the tone varies from film to film, and we can actually see forward progress in the characters we've come to love. (And the 3D for the final 20 mins is pretty cool if you get to see it.)

There is much to love in this installment. As I mentioned before, the sets, costumes, and special effects are all top notch and contribute perfectly to the illusion of a wizard world that exists alongside ours. And while the performances across the board are first rate, I especially loved the actresses cast to play Dolores Umbridge and Luna Lovegood, who were both perfect for their very eclectic roles.

I had heard it said that this film lacked the whimsical spirit of the book, but if that was really the case, it didn't bother me. (Frankly, all I remembered from the book was Umbridge, which they interpreted very well.) The movie was also a little funnier and lighter than I had expected, which was pleasantly surprising. That's not to say that the story isn't dark, but the biggest challenge I saw to this movie was its very talky nature--it could have used an action scene about midway through the movie (such as Ron's quidditch debut, for example). Rather than being scared, I think some smaller children might just be bored. And the ending felt a little rushed--I wouldn't have minded another 10-15 mins of revelations or explanations.

As for where this movie stands against the rest of the films in the series, I'm still trying to decide. While it has some of the emotional depth of the third movie, it also lacks some of the action of the fourth. Though it isn't my favorite in the series, it also isn't my least favorite. I'd probably put it somewhere in the middle, between number 4 and number 2 (so for those of you keeping track, I'd probably rank the Potter movies like this: 3,1,4,5,2). It's a very good movie, and an admirably efficient adaptation of an 870-page book. I can't wait to see it again. (***1/2 out of four)

One note for the HP producers who undoubtedly frequent my blog: bring back composer John Williams for #6 and #7, pleeeeeeease!

Stack-ranking the "Harry Potter" films

I'm somewhat ashamed to admit that I haven't yet seen Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, but we've got our tickets to see it in IMAX 3D on Monday. So to keep me occupied in the meantime, I thought I'd rank the four previous Harry Potter movies from best to worst (although "worst" in the case of HP movies really is a relative term...). So if you'll keep in mind that I love all of these movies, here we go:

1. Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban: At first viewing I was disappointed with this movie, mostly because it left out a lot of meaningful moments from the book and wasn't as faithful to its literary source as the first two movies in the series. However, upon repeat viewings, this movie has really grown on me. The visuals are moody and memorable, the acting is first-rate (Hermione has never been less-annoying), and the tone is the perfect balance of whimsy and malice. And this movie gets extra points for John Williams' perfect score, which has a prime spot in my Ipod rotation.
2. Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone: The first movie in the series had the uneviable task of welcoming the world to a cinematic Hogwarts and its associated magic. Happily, it pulled it off very well. Upon repeat viewings, the film is unnecessarily slow and overly loyal to its source, but it is also perfectly sentimental and appropriately innocent for an 11-year old Harry and his young audience. And could the casting have been more inspired?
3. Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire: This is definitely the most exciting of the first four movies, and remains a very entertaining and fast-paced adaptation of a 700-page novel. This movie's strengths include a streamlined and focused screenplay and some terrific performances (such as Brendan Gleeson as Mad-Eye Moody). A couple of nit-picky complaints: I sorely missed John Williams score, and Michael Gambon's Dumbledore gets a little more feisty and cranky than I ever pictured him in the book. Altogether a very fun movie, and how great was that creepy graveyard scene?
4. Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets: This movie already had two things going against it: the associated book was my least favorite (too similar in structure to the first), and director Chris Columbus did little stylistically to distinguish this movie from the series' first film (though I complained about it at first, the producers' decision to shift directors from film to film--starting with #3--really helped breathe life into each film). Having said that, Chamber of Secrets does boast some very funny Ron-centric moments, introduces us to cute little Ginny Weasley, and gives us one last chance to enjoy the perfectly patriarchal Richard Harris as Dumbledore.

So there's my batting order: 3, 1, 4, 2. What do you think? How would you rank the first four movies? And for those of you who have seen #5, where would you rank it with relation to the other four movies?

"Transformers," "Ratatouille" reviews

My movie-going habits seem to come in spurts, as I'll sometimes go weeks or months without seeing a new movie, and then suddenly I go see a bunch of them all at once. So in keeping with that spirit, here are a couple of quick reviews for movies I watched over the past few days:

• Transformers: Say what you will about Michael Bay--whose movies are sometimes frustrating examples of excess--but when it's time for car chases and explosions and pure delightful cinematic chaos, he seems to be right at home. Since action is really the only thing anyone interested in Transformers wants to know about, I'll just cut to the chase. The action is fantastic, especially during the last 20-30 minutes of the movie. The Transformers themselves are a wonder to behold, and thanks to the wizards at ILM, fit seamlessly into this 13-year-old boy's fantasy--they really look amazing. (I also loved that they used the original voice of Optimus Prime.) The story, on the other hand, is messy and silly. Bay tries to make this an Independence Day-type ensemble, but the only character that really works in this movie is the one played by the charismatic Shia LeBeouf (the future son of Indiana Jones, reportedly). It's too intense and crass (Bay calls it "edgy") for most children, which is a shame, because most kids are justifiably dying to see this movie. But for the grown-up kids, it's really a great ride. (*** out of four)

• Ratatouille: Pixar has done it again: I loved this movie. Mixing oodles of charm with a witty script and a decent little moral, Ratatouille is the type of movie that you wish we'd see more of. It's as close to perfect as a family movie gets: it's clever without being crude, funny without being silly, and uplifting without being heavy-handed. As I'm sure you know, it's the story of a food-loving rat who accidentally gets heavily (and secretly) involved in a the kitchen of a once-great Parisan restaurant. But what would happen if France's most notorious food critic gets wind of a rat in the kitchen? Of course we know that the movie will end happily even before it's begun, but it's really the journey that's so much fun. Visually, the movie is a treat to watch (as we've come to expect from Pixar), but the movie in general is a "delight to the senses" (a phrase coined by my bro-in-law, Peter), with a bubbly musical score and a theme that will make you hungry for fine food. It's a rare film that is truly appropriate for the whole family without being insulting or dull to any of the age groups. Pixar is now 8 for 8; I wonder if they're hiring... (**** out of four)

Will Harry Potter die?

Even before the book comes out, the biggest question surrounding Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows is undoubtedly "Will Harry Potter live or die?" Of course I have my own opinions, which are admittedly based largely in what I want (rather than what would make sense), but I think our scarred hero will indeed survive the series, if nothing else but to give millions of readers worldwide the happy ending that they all signed up for when they picked up the first book 10 years ago. Read my lips: Harry Potter will not die. (I'm almost starting to believe myself!)

"Wicked," "Mary Poppins" reviews

Wendy and I just got back from a fantastic weekend in NYC, and found much to love (mostly in the form of Roxy's cheesecake and Max Brenner's chocolate). But of course two of the highlights were the big musicals that we saw on Friday and Saturday nights: Wicked and Mary Poppins, respectively. Here are my thoughts:

• Wicked: This is every bit as much fun as people said, and then some. Even Wendy, who at times scoffs at a good musical, found herself captivated by this whimsical alternate take on The Wizard of Oz. The music is catchy and bright, the sets are colorful and dynamic, and the story is told with energy and charm. Though I thought I knew about the story, there were still several surprises that put a smile on both of our faces. If I have one complaint about the show, it's that we never got to see the Wicked Witch flying around the audience like I fully expected to see...still, it was a lot of fun, and worth seeing if you are ever in NYC.

• Mary Poppins: We were also really excited to see this one, since it is one of our favorite childhood movies. You've got to hand it to Disney--they spare no expense when it comes to creating a spectacle on-stage. The sets were incredible; they were detailed and creative and constantly changing (they reminded me of the old Sunset Boulevard sets in terms of their grandeur). As for the show and story itself...we sort of wish we had seen this one first, since Wicked seemed to be so much more lively and consistently entertaining. Don't get me wrong, Mary Poppins has a few high-energy numbers that brought down the house (especially "Step in Time"), and is never without something interesting to look at, but missed a bit of the magic of the movie. In talking about it with Wendy afterwards, we decided that the Broadway Mary and Burt didn't quite have the same charm and personality as did good old Julie Andrews and Dick Van Dyke, which could have helped the show feel a little lighter. Additionally, the show varies from the movie's story a bit, adding several new songs and characters that didn't necessarily enhance the story. Having said that, there is probably nothing bigger on Broadway, and it was a very fun way to spend a Saturday night.

The curse of the family-friendly sequel?

What do The Legend of Zorro, Evan Almighty, and Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer have in common? Interestingly, they are three sequels in dying (or at least ailing) movie franchises that have been released with a tamer MPAA rating than their predecessor(s) in an attempt to attract a wider movie audience. What else do these movies have in common? Each of them has made less than their predecessor--some of them (Zorro and Evan) making significantly less than the originals.

Now I'm all about keeping movies free of unnecessary excesses. But if I were the people in charge of greenlighting these movies, why mess with the audience that made your first film a success? Apparently someone liked that Zorro killed his enemies in the first film, and apparently someone liked the risque humor of Bruce Almighty. And apparently someone thought it was pretty great to see--wait, what was it really that people saw in Fantastic Four anyway?

But I digress...I'm just curious to know why producers these days think that their movies have to be everything to everyone. If they're going to make a sequel to a beloved movie, why not try to appeal to the audience that loved the movie in the first place? Tomorrow another "family-friendly" sequel comes out for a movie that was decidedly not family-friendly: Live Free or Die Hard, with a franchise-first PG-13 rating. What's next? Rambo IV: Waterguns and Smokebombs?

Let's see if this sanitized-sequel box office trend continues. And it might help if any of these sequels was actually worth seeing...

What will get me through Friday:

Steven Spielberg released this picture yesterday. Now that I've seen it, I'm actually starting to believe this movie is going to happen.


The movie comes out on May 22, 2008. Only 11 months to go!

In other news, Fox released the final trailer for The Simpsons Movie, which looks similar to previous trailers, with a few silly exceptions. (My favorite part comes during the last 5 seconds, which still has me giggling...). See the trailer here and then go see the movie on July 27.

Indiana Jones and the Lost Legos?

The Wall Street Journal had an interesting article the other day about the recent lucrative licensing deals that are being created to coincide with the upcoming Indiana Jones sequel. Lucasfilms, who has been so successful in merchandising its Star Wars films in virtually every market possible, is hoping to do the same with their Indiana Jones franchise. Among the partnerships that are being forged include, of course, Legos, as well as deals with M&Ms and Burger King, among others.

It's interesting to note the difference in the marketplace since the last time an Indy film (Last Crusade) was released back in 1989. Although I was young back then, I hardly remember any merchandising that went along with the film's release (especially when compared with another huge hit that also came out that summer: the Tim Burton/Michael Keaton Batman). Today it seems like it's hard not to imagine a movie being cross-promoted at fast food chains and in toy store isles (anyone else getting tired of seeing Black Spidey, Shrek, or Cap'n Jack on everything we touch?).

But seriously, how cool does that Lego Indy look? I'm almost praying our baby is a little boy so I can start stocking up on all the cool Indy toys!

"Breach" review

We finally saw Breach, a spy thriller that we'd been meaning to catch up on since it was in theaters back in February. It tells the true story of Robert Hanssen, the worst spy in U.S. history, who was finally brought down back in 2001. I vaguely remember hearing the story, but didn't remember the whole story. And though some of the details are slightly sordid, it's a fascinating true story in our nation's recent history.

The movie tells the tale of Hanssen's fall through the eyes of an ambitious, young FBI agent-in-training, who is assigned to be a clerk for (and spy on) Hanssen. Since we already know from the film's very first scene that Hanssen is brought down, the suspense doesn't lie so much in where he will end up, but in how he gets there. There is relatively little action, but the movie moves at a brisk pace and is never dull (though pay close attention to the dialogue, or you'll be lost pretty quickly--watch this after the kids have gone to bed so there are no distractions).

The acting really is first-rate, especially from Chris Cooper, who plays Hanssen with so many layers that you don't know if you should pity the guy, root for him, or hate his guts. He could so easily have become a caricature--a shallow, one-dimensional traitor whose motivations are so black-and-white that the audience doesn't even have to think about how they feel toward him. But gratefully, Cooper (with some guidance, I suppose, from the screenwriters and director) chooses to play Hanssen as a morally-conflicted, socially-awkward anti-bureaucrat. He is amazing to watch. (Laura Linney and Ryan Phillippe also do good work in their leading roles.)

Though it's being advertised as a thriller along the lines of The Bourne Identity or a Jack Ryan movie, it probably has more in common with director Billy Ray's fascinating last film, Shattered Glass, which I reviewed here in April of last year. As with Glass, Breach details the difficult and complicated world of moral gray areas--not just in Hanssen's double life, but also with those in the intelligence community that are forced to lead lives of half-truths in order to bring the real truth to light. It's a tough--but ultimately satisfying--film to watch, because so of the movie's conflicting themes (family, religion, patriotism, career progression, etc.) feel so close to our own reality, even if we're not being spied on by the government. (There's a little coarse language, and some occasional references to Hanssen's sexual preferences that you should be aware of.)
(***1/2 out of four)

Dwight = Frasier?

In one of the stranger stories I've read recently, Roger Friedman from FoxNews.com is reporting that NBC is considering a spinoff to The Office featuring Dwight (Rainn Wilson) in a lead role. While this is still just considered gossip (especially considering the source), it's made me think about this a little bit, and I'm not sure I love the idea. Here are a few reasons:

• Spinoffs rarely work. For every Frasier, there are a dozen Joeys.
  
• It's not like The Office is a franchise like CSI or Law & Order that can co-exist independent from each other...
• The Office isn't nearly the huge hit that NBC is trying to make it--it regularly loses its timeslot to both Ugly Betty and Survivor (although in the 18-49 age group it does pretty well). Things will get even tougher for the show when it moves up against CSI and Grey's Anatomy.
• Finally, Dwight is a wonderful supporting player on a show with many odd (and terrific) supporting characters. But as soon as you put Dwight front and center, isn't he just a little too left-field to carry his own show? (You thought Michael Scott was weird...). All I'm saying is that it might be better creatively if you let the supporting players remain supporting players...

Like I say, it's just a rumor at this point. But in my opinion, NBC is about ready to "shrute" up a good thing. What do you think about a Dwight spinoff?

Comfort food

Wendy and I have been sick for the past couple of days. You know how it is--you've been curled up in the fetal position for 12 hours, hoping for some relief. When the sun starts setting again, you start to panic because you think it's going to be another night of consistent crawling toward the bathroom on hands and knees. For Wendy, the only thing that brings her comfort at a time like this is...Disney's Sword in the Stone?

I suppose we all have them: movies that just make us feel like we're little kids again. Movies that give us hope when it's gloomy outside. For me, I'd have to say my comfort food is Disney's Pinocchio, although yesterday I settled for Cars (very cute, by the way). Other sick-day favorites: Mary Poppins and Lord of the Rings. I also enjoyed curling up with To Kill a Mockingbird, which I'm reading for the umpteenth time (doing my Atticus research...).

What is your comfort food when you're sick?

Sean Connery says "no thanks" to fourth Indy

Although I'm sure the fourth Indiana Jones (no title yet) will still be fun without him, the news of Sean Connery's choice not to appear in it saddens me. His statement, which you can view here, shows that he's still a class act, but wouldn't it be classier if he just un-retired and took one last adventure? And come on, Spielberg and Lucas, pull out the big guns (or checkbook...) and give him what he really wants!

Man, it makes me want to go watch those movies again, RIGHT NOW!!!

"Hairspray" trailer

Admittedly, I don't know much about this musical other than the fact that when on Broadway, one of the lead female roles was often played by a man in drag. So I don't really know what to expect from this big-screen adaptation, but it has a couple of things going for it:

• a big, pedigreed cast, including Michelle Pfeiffer (where has she been?), John Travolta (in drag), Queen Latifah (as a blond?), and Christopher Walken (always brilliant), among others
• a PG-rating: when was the last time a big screen musical was PG? Annie? Not that a PG-rating necessarily means a movie will be good, it just tells me that it won't focus as heavily on some of the seedier elements like other recent musicals (Moulin Rouge, Chicago, Dreamgirls) have done. The industry seems to have the impression that musicals won't sell unless they are "edgy." I guess we're about to find out...
  

Then again, here are some of my reservations:

• not since Mrs. Doubtfire has a woman in drag been funny (sorry, Norbit)
• High School Musical heartthrob Zac Efron has a big role as...the naughty rocker? What's next, Elmo as Hannibal Lecter?
• the movie opens up on July 20, one day before the final Harry Potter book is released. Honestly, who's going to be thinking about hairspray on a day like that?

Click here to watch the trailer, and then tell me on a scale of 1 to 10 how likely you are to see this movie. Right now, I'm a 6.

"On the Lot" still on the air...for now

I have a confession to make: Wendy and I couldn't muster up enough interest in On the Lot to watch the whole thing last night. On the one hand, it's becoming a most fascinating failure--a huge fiasco coming from some pretty big names (Spielberg and Burnett). On the other hand, I don't care how bizarre the show's shortcomings are, it's outright dull! We sat through one of the movies (the ring in the toilet one) but just couldn't sit around and listen to the judges or the hostess make things more awkward than they already were.

As I browsed EW.com today, I noticed a short article describing some of the strange happenings surrounding the much-hyped show. Though Fox claims that it's sticking with the show through August, it sounds to me like they are trying to kill the show slowly (like trying to shoot a deer with a BB gun). Click here for the full story.

I still argue that a show for amateur filmmakers is a great idea, but I think the American Idol format is what killed the show (as well as some really boneheaded producers). While I'm sorry I recommended the show to my loyal readers, the show could just as easily been fantastic, so I feel vindicated. Still, for those of you (like me) that devoted precious time to this strange show, I'm sorry. I guess there's nothing left for us to do but focus our attention on So You Think You Can Dance...

"Pirates 3" review

First things first: continuing this summer's crappy trend, Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End is not as much fun as the first two Pirates movies. It's too long, too slow, and too confusing, at least for the first two hours. (Yes, you heard me, the movie is two hours and 45 minutes long! Normally the length wouldn't bother me--the previous Harry Potter was the same length, but it was consistently thrilling and fast paced.) Having said that, when At World's End finally gets going, it floats nicely into a frantic, dizzying, delightful finish.

As I mentioned, there's more story here than is worth mentioning, with every sort of pirate being introduced and given his or her own little subplot. Because there are so many new stories to tell, there isn't time to address the stories we're all really interested in. Case in point: Johnny Depp's Captain Jack isn't even introduced until about 40 minutes into the movie! To add to the frustration, the other likable or interesting characters (Will Turner, Elizabeth Swann, Captain Barbossa, etc.) don't get their storylines addressed until nearly the end of the movie, amidst all the chaos. And what kind of a pirate movie waits until the final 30 minutes to stage a swordfight?!?!

Having said all this, it would appear that I disliked this movie; to the contrary, when it finally gets to its conclusion, it satisfactorily ties up all the loose ends (from each of the three movies), even giving some surprising plot elements you might not have expected. The climactic battle takes place in a swirling maelstrom, complete with rain and explosions and lots of delicious special effects and death. So if you had asked me at about the two hour mark, I would have said it deserved ** out of four. Thanks to the final 40 minutes or so, it earns *** out of four.

This summer is disappointing me a little bit so far; I really hope Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix doesn't disappoint, or I might have to reconsider a new hobby...

On the...chopping block?

For both of us that have been watching the new reality show, On the Lot, we may need to try and recruit a few more of our friends to watch--the show is doing horribly in the ratings, and though it's summertime and there's not much else to watch, I fear Fox may do something drastic if ratings don't improve...

To initiate the newcomers, the show is basically American Idol for filmmakers. Yesterday's episode gave us a chance to watch, for the first time, 1-minute short films from each of the 18 finalists. Some of the films were interesting, some were dreadful (so much potty humor!), but only one or two was completely successful (I'd say the lucky penny one and the safety factory were the only outright "winners").

Being the first time the judges have had to address each finalist individually, I'd say they were...awkward. Carrie Fisher--who in other situations has been very blunt--seemed to have a hard time saying what she was really thinking; call it the Paula Abdul syndrome (her teeth looked a lot better though...). The guest judge just mimicked everything Carrie Fisher said. Only Garry Marshall seemed to be able to say anything constructive. I also don't love the hostess--she uses her hands in annoying ways, and just doesn't seem very genuine (where's Cat Deeley when you need her?). Let's hope things get better as the show moves on.

Having said those things, the show does have the potential to be very interesting. Let's hope people catch on. Spread the word!

I'm "Lost" and loving it

OK, just to be clear: I am about to talk about last night's killer Lost finale. So if you haven't watched it yet (Brett), kindly go watch it and then come back.

Now onto the show: I can't tell you how pleased I am with last night's season finale. It was scary, funny, sad, touching, and completely mind-boggling. I LOVED it. So, in no particular order, here are a few of my comments about the big game-changing episode:

• I loved Hurley's big moment of triumph. So nice to see the big guy catching a break. And wasn't it great that the silly VW actually served a purpose...
• There were a few moments during the finale (Mr. Friendly's demise at the hands of Sawyer, Jack kicking the crap out of Ben) when I am actually sort of scared to admit that I felt a little bit of bloodlust...but MAN did it feel good to see some of those jerks brought to their knees!
• Charlie: even though they've been telling us he was a goner for months now, part of me still believed that he'd somehow get around it. I was equal parts shocked and touched when he heroically gave his life to "save" the rest of the group. (Let's just hope they really do get saved!) And how sweet was it to see the former altar-boy doing the cross-thingie as he died--felt like a nice bookend to his life's story. Wow!
• Jack and his women: though I didn't really feel like the love business had much of a place in this finale, it's about time Jack said how he felt for Kate. I just wish it hadn't come 2 minutes after he kissed Juliet...what a mimbo!
• Sawyer: Although his brooding is annoying, it felt realistic at least, considering how he just killed a man with his bare hands just a few episodes back. I'm glad to see that it is affecting his poor tortured psyche.
  
• Mikhail (eye-patch guy): Will this guy ever die? Can't say I would hate seeing him lose his remaining eye (I know, there's that bloodlust again...).
• Penny: Who is (or was) Naomi, anyway? Whose boat is it if it isn't Penny's? Who are the people that Jack called?
  
• Locke: I'm glad he's not dead, but was it really necessary to kill off Naomi? And WALT?!?! Where did he come from?
  
• Future Jack: was everyone else as blown away as I was that Jack's flashbacks were actually flashforwards?!?! How did they get off the island? Who got off the island? Who was in the casket? Who is Kate with now? Why do they need to get back to the island? And does this mean that flashbacks are gonzo, and now we'll have flashforwards?!!? Either way, I loved it. LOVED it.

So now we wait until February 2008. What a great way to end the season, though. What did you think? Were you as satisfied with the finale as I was?