Call of Duty: Black Ops Review

"I can't get these fucking numbers out of my head!" - Alex Mason

I've always kind of wondered about our fascination with video games centered on warfare. Is the fact that game franchises like Call of Duty and Medal of Honor are so popular some kind of subliminal thing cooked up by the government. I think kids are getting a bit wiser these days about recruiters. But who needs some propagrazzi (propaganda + paparazzi, yeah I made it up) to tell people how cool it would be to be a soldier when they can just market a video game franchise that allows kids to take a first person look through the eyes of a soldier, even if many of the missions this soldier takes are highly implausible and some even hysterical. But enough of that. This isn't one of my thinking posts, it's one of my reviews. So without further a due, here's what I think about Call of Duty: Black Ops.

(I will not be mentioning the online play because I don't play online, but I'm told it's shitty)

Black Ops is without a doubt the best Call of Duty I have played. Instead of being some random yet inexplicably awesome grunt for a 70-year old war (why not WWI or the Civil War next time), this time we are the men behind the curtain. We get to play as a scarred covert operative working in alongside the CIA and other shady customers from our side and the others. And the game's frenetic action and fascinating non-linear storyline can keep the players on their toes and adrenaline fueled at the same. And if all of that isn't enough, you can get your blood pumping by playing the new and improved Nazi Zombies side game.

STORY

Black Ops is a sequel to the previous CoD game, World at War. You play as Alex Mason (voiced by Sam Worthington), a skilled wet boy who makes a living out of going to hell and back, during the height of the Cold War in the 1960s. After his involvement with the Bay of Pigs goes wrong, Mason is captured by Soviet terrorists and imprisioned in Vorkuta. He escapes after befriending Russian inmate Viktor Reznov (Gary Oldman), a character from World at War who helps you here and there during the game, Mason is able to escape and get back into his old line of work. Despite his mental scars, new missions granted by the CIA and President John Kennedy himself bring Mason and his compatriots to war torn Vietnam, the grimy Tokyo metropolis of Japan, and the harsh cold of Russia. All the while, Mason and his stealth comrade Reznov have their own score to settle with their targets.

BASICS

Okay, so Call of Duty is still the same basic first person shooter it's been since the beginning of the series. There are cool new things to be seen here, though. You can drive vehicles at times, which Call of Duty I don't think has done before save for tanks and planes. You pilot helicopters, drive cars, and ride motorcycles. All very cool, and a lot more fast paced. Most fascinating to me was that this game was a bit more story based and character driven. Whereas there was only a silent avatar as the protagonist in past games, Alex Mason has a personality and an arc (and an interesting one at that). You see things through his eyes, and you see how he has become mentally unstable through brief but vivid hallucinations (one in particular will catch everyone off guard, mainly because it doesn't seem like a hallucination). Also the story goes in detail and involves various situations, real or fictional or who knows, into the game. Realism seems to be a bit heavier here, even if there are moments of the usual Call of Duty improbability (moreso than usual in fact). Love the Vietnam standard music soldiers would play (CCR's "Fortunate Son" and The Rolling Stones' "Sympathy for the Devil") and subtle reminders of classic films. (Platoon, Hamburger Hill, Fullmetal Jacket, and Mason's partner Woods totally looked like Robert De Niro in The Deer Hunter) There is also a wealth of actual stars delivering voice work for the game: Sam Worthington, Gary Oldman, Ed Harris, Ice Cube, With all of this in mind, Black Ops is actually a more visceral, compelling, and intense Call of Duty game.

For Zombies, things have vastly changed too. There are three new and fun maps to play on (the latter two being unlockables). One is set in a run down movie theatre with Nazi decor. This map is set in 40s, but of course features health drinks ("Need a little REVIVAL!!!"), a teleporter, and a weapons customizer. This is also probably the easiest map for players, or for me at least. Here you can play as a gung ho American, a loud and strangely sexually frustrated Russian, a creepy German, or an eccentric Japanese man, all of them highly abrasive and over the top. The second map puts players in the 60s where the Pentagon's War Room comes under a zombie siege. In this instance, a player can play as President Kennedy, Secretary of Defense Robert McNamera, Fidel Castro, or Richard Nixon. The final map puts players in a 90s Arcade sort of setting where players can view things from an aerial point of view and watch monsters just flow and hand out a bunch cool upgrades upon dying. This can be fun, but is not entirely what I want out of Nazi zombies. All of these maps are interesting and put a new spin on the Zombies format to the game (a format that is becoming increasingly popular).

TOOLS

The tools department is a bit obvious. Aresenals for Call of Duty games rarely change, but then again most games don't. You get a new model of the same weapon depending on the era the game takes place. You get a wide range of assualt rifles, sub-machine guns, pistols, shotguns, explosives, and launchers of various sorts. A surprising change this time around is that a player can briefly drive a vehicle in a few instances. In this case, why shoot your enemies when you can plow threw them at the same time. I know a little bit about guns, and for some reason I felt like a lot of the guns seen in this game seemed almost out of place. By out of place, I mean, they seemed more modern and not like something you'd find in the 1960s. I don't know, maybe I'm wrong. Either that, or the black operatives just got better tools.

ENEMIES

The enemies are all virtually the same. They are soldiers, they have guns, and if they see you they will try to kill you. Simple war mechanics. I guess I can diffrentiate them based on their nationalities. Early on you will be fighting Fidel Castro's Cuban army during the Bay of Pigs. Then later, and for the most part (being it's the Cold War and all), you will be facing down Russian soldiers of the Soviet Union. In a flashback to Reznov's time in World War II, you go back to a World at War feel and kill some pesky Nazis. There's actually a point where Reznov and his men are allowed to kill everyone in sight: I think it included Germans, Russians, and the British. Finally a lot of excitement is when you are in the worst hot zones of Vietnam and fighting the NVA, Viet Cong and the like. While the enemies in the game are bland and artificial (no doubt, a major contrast to real life), they can definitely be intense and startling when they rush at you in huge groups. Of course, there is the standard dogs that will go for your throat from time to time. Strangely, I think these dogs have been the easiest to kill out of all of the others I've seen in past games. The main antagonist is General Nikita Dragovich, a Communist terrorist from the Soviet Union. Along side him are Lev Kravchenco, Dragovich's ruthless lieutenant, and Dr. Friedrich Steiner, a Nazi scientist (slightly reminiscent to Josef Mengele) who defected to the Reds' side. Fidel Castro is a bit of an antagonist in the beginning, having teamed with Dragovich in order to ambush his would-be-assassins.

For the Zombie gameplay, there is a bit of a difference. The zombies are a lot faster and stronger, and harder to kill at times. And it's not just zombies this time. Joining them are stout demonic crawling monsters that slash and explode in poisonous toxins when killed. And there are also hell hounds (yes, hell hounds) that show up from time to time to maul the player(s). hell hounds are kids stuff compared to massive crowds of zombies and crawlers. Somehow fighting zombies is always more intense.

GRAPHICS

The graphics are top notch. Probably the best Call of Duty has done so far. Character and weapon designs are especially well done. They look authentic and slightly real at times. For characters voiced by big actors, Gary Oldman and Ed Harris for example, the designs were made to resemble how the actors actually look. This was done very well. The environments had a richness and saturated look to them that made them all the more vivid and believable. And there are a lot of different environments, so this look never gets old. Environmental graphics are on par with the Modern Warfare games. So all is well essentially, though I'm sure there is an obvious bug or two. I didn't notice if there were.

OVERALL

Black Ops provides a very exciting new twist to the franchise. I hope it keeps it up if it is like this for good. I even hope it improves. The action hasn't been this exciting in awhile. Every time I fell I was very determined to respawn and keep fighting. Plus there are just so many things that has been done regarding the style and substance of the game that has just been delightful. The campaign mode was scripted by David S. Goyer, the writer of Batman Begins and the Blade trilogy. Pretty impressive job too, as the story is very intricate and involving. Black Ops actually feels like it could be a movie. And if players are worried that this game might be too easy, don't be. I think the difficulty was fairly high even on Recruit. In the end, Black Ops is just a fun game. A wholly good time. Plus if you can't get into the campaign there is always Zombie and Online modes to play on. It is definitely worth a buy.

This has been a second video game review from Your Modest Guru. Thanks for reading.

Fallout 3 Review

"War... War never changes." - narrator

A friend let me borrow his copy of Fallout 3 and I must say it is exactly my kind of game. I made it no secret in my Red Dead Redemption review that I love the free roaming sandbox environment modern games have incorporated lately. This is the perfect sandbox environment. Post nuclear Holocaust Washington D.C. and all it has left. You venture out into the irradiated and lethal Capital Wasteland with nothing but the clothes on your back. The primary mission is to survive. And it all plays out (pun intended) in an almost realistic way. I'm loving it.

The scale of the game is so huge that I've finished the main story mode and scoured the the map yet I'm still sure I did not see all there was to see. Even so, I feel I should review it now. Even if this review is already a few years too late.

STORY:
Set in a future predated by an alternate history, Fallout 3 is set in the American North-East. After the end of World War 2, the arms race was focused on primarily which led to the development of futuristic technology. It also led to the Cold War boiling over into full scale nuclear devestation. The world was thrown into chaos. Though before the bombs fell, thousands of Americans were hauled off into underground fallout facilities called Vaults, where they would be safe and comfortable during the destruction. The game begins with our nameless protagonist, called The Lone Wanderer, apparantly being born inside Vault 101, a Vault specifically ordered to remain closed forever. After getting acquainted with controls and environment while gallivanting around the Vault as a kid, we flash-forward a few years into the future where the player's scientist father, James (Liam Neeson), opens the Vault door and escapes into the Wasteland. It is here, the player ventures outside of the Vault as well to find his father. This also means adapting to the extraordinarily grim Capital Wasteland, once called Washington D.C. And the adventure begins.


BASICS:
Fallout 3, as I said, is a massive sandbox environment. Fortunately, this means you can run around all of D.C.'s famed monuments and sites (and also see how the harsh future has tressed them up). I complained that the Grand Theft Auto games had way too much going on. This game has that, but the difference is each new subplot you happen across can end up being just as, if not better than the game's primary storyline. Also worthy of noting, the game does not have a set main character. The player is free to design the character's adult appearance during the birth scene in the beginning. I always loved that aspect. The game is not exactly easy. If you really work at it, I suppose the main story can be finished in a few hours. But there is over 100 hours of gameplay entirely, and the whole map and the missions found there are like a scattered puzzle. Places aren't just there to go to, they have to be discovered. Also survival with wits and mitts isn't as easy either. Enemies on this game can be overwhelming. What I really liked though, was the moral compass of the game. This game strongly employs free will. Meaning you can choose to be the hero or villain or just passing through. I will say being a villain is extremely difficult with those thoughtful people out there, as the evil choices can be shocking (nuke a friendly little town-shocking). There is also a leveling up system which allows you to gain perks and enhancements. You can sometimes pick up friends who will want to help you along the way; they can be useful or a burden. The game combines political, military, and social satire with a surreal survival horror scenario that is very enjoyable. I've seen few games this nuanced and intelligent with its design and story. It is a pleasure.

TOOLS:
Set in the dystopian future the weapons categories vary considerably. There is a vast array of assault rifles, hunting rifles, miniguns, missile launchers, fragmentation grenades, mines, pistols, and knives laying on corpses or just anywhere sometimes. Then again, we are in the future. Their are rather cool energy weapons such as laser and plasma rifles, as well as their grenade, mine, pistol, and minigun varients. There are also interesting weapons such as Abraham Lincoln's repeater rifle, military officer swords, or even a mini-nuke launcher. If you have the right materials, skills, and schematics you can also customize or invent a new kind of weapon. All of these weapons can be particularly harmful if used properly. The game gives the freedom to switch interchangeably from first person POV to third person (I'm mostly third person). It also has a system that allows you to freeze frame and target and enemy's body to get a somewhat cinematic slow motion shootout. This is particularly useful because the standard real time shootout, no matter the POV, is extremely gritty, fast paced, and unnerving. Needless to say a little free frame shooting here and there, or a lot of it, is not exactly the sissy way out but more like the smart way. Aside from guns, just about any other item can be picked up (not that they are exactly worth something to you). In the Wasteland, scavenging is helpful but you won't always find something good. And if you do, others may not be so keen on letting you take it.

ENEMIES:
This game has a freakish and horrific rogue's gallery that haunts every corner, street, alley, and shadow of the Wasteland. As a player, you have to be on your guard at all times. Depending on how you act around people can determine whether they will become friends or foes, while others merely unload first and don't ask any questions. Many humans have fractured off into groups, and a lot of these groups aren't your friends right off the bat. The raiders are cold blooded killers and rapists who look like they came off the set of The Road Warrior. Being that they are just people (albeit heavily armored, armed, and crazy), you can kill them pretty easy. There's also the Talon Company, a mercenary group and hit squad that attacks with deadly force. The most lethal humans by far are the Enclave, the corrupt remaining remnants of the U.S. Government headed by the mysterious President John Henry Eden (Malcolm McDowell) and his right hand man Colonel Autumn, or the amoral Outcasts of The Enclave's enemy The Brotherhood of Steel. Both Enclave and Outcast fighters are covered head to toe in advanced battle armor that make Master Chief piss himself, and carry energy weapons that would make him do it again. You will mostly come across the Super Mutants, hulking simple minded brutes who tote guns and the most immoral of attitudes. They are in groups and a handful to deal with. You will also face the Ghouls, zombie like humans driven insane and animalistic by nuclear exposure. They are easy to destroy but are fast and make good use of their claws.

There are also a variety of extremely deadly robots roaming around the wasteland or droning around abandoned facilities. Though these robots are modeled after the ones seen off of 1950s science fiction comic covers, they are not fun to go toe to toe with. These things will do their best to take you down with arms that double as miniguns, laser blasters, flamethrowers, and missle launchers. Proceed with caution. Okay a bit of a spoiler, but players who are wary of robots need not fret because in the end Liberty Prime, a 50 foot tall android who spouts ultra patriotic Cold War slogans and obliterates all in its path, is on your side.

But like in RDR, it is the damn animals that pose possibly the greatest threat. The mutated bear, Yao Guay, can ambush you easily and take your health from 100 to 0 in a matter of only three or four slashes. They are also hard to put down. Speaking of putting down, you may find packs of mutated dogs that are fairly easy to kill. Super Mutants sometimes travel with the hideous Centaur, which I can only describe as a blob of the melted bodies of several humans that just spews waste and flings its tentacles (they aren't pretty to look at, so kill them quick and be done with em). Like in old '50s B-Movies, the hilly wilderness is inhabited by large mutant scorpions and the cities are filled with large fire breathing ants. There are the cold blooded Mirelurk creatures, which just seem to be humanoid crawdad (the Mirelurk King is probably the creepiest thing I've seen in the game). Then of course there's the throwaway puny animal antagonists such as the enlarged cockroach or fly. So animals are the scariest and sometimes the hardest things to kill.

GRAPHICS
This is a tough one, because on the hand you have graphics which bring forth a stark, detailed, and highly effective environment, while at the same time player and AI character models are very low grade. The in-game avatars and non playable characters have their hints of detail but are more often than not just tweaked versions of the same model. It's not impressive but it doesn't totally ruin the game either. But like I said, the environmental graphics are amazing. This game does a good job of showing a barren and destroyed wasteland while at the same time making it seem as if a true inhabitable place could have been the pile of stone and dust you are standing in front of. Day to night effects are very crisp too. The graphics aren't perfect, but they are good and unique in many ways.

OVERALL
For those who love this type of open world, survival of the fittest type of adventure, I of course recommend it. The really good thing is that there is just so much to take in. If players don't like the graphics, there is an incredible plot to the game; if the plot doesn't interest them, they can be amazed at all of the different game mechanics; and if none of that catches their fancy than they have a ball ripping and running all over the wasteland just for the hell of it. It will be a long while before you can say that there is nothing to do on this game. Stick with it, I'm sure you won't be disappointed.

This has been the first of two new video game reviews from Your Modest Guru. Thanks for reading.

Give em a chance

"An actor is at most a poet, and at least an entertainer." - Marlon Brando

Some people to this day do not fully appreciate actors. It takes a lot of freaking skill to make an audience believe a character even a little bit. But then again, not every actor was that shining star on Broadway or tour de force newcomer. Some just had the right connections and thought it'd be cool, and some got lucky. Very, very, very, very lucky. That's Hollywood. That being said, not everyone who comes along is going to be a new Brando or Freeman or Dicaprio. And ultimately some of these so called actors are horrible and can also destroy a movie they are involved with (I'm talking to you Sofia. No I don't care who your father is; you just keep directing like he did). Then there are some who are bad, but you can tell they are at least trying. These are the ones who usually end up being funny, likable, or at least memorable once you're done watching their performance. So I will take my time to talk about a few actors considered to be bad by some and how they are bad.

(Let me note that none of these things are limited only to "bad actors," because I've seen plenty of good actors do these things at least once, whether it is just a line or an entire performance. So there.)

OVER THE TOP:

Yeah, you know it when it happens. That point where your only reaction to a person's acting is "....SUBTLE!" Anyone can read lines, and I will go into those who do so with little enthusiasm later, but the more memorable are the ones who read the line and take it with too much enthusiasm. This leads to them being really goofy.

Going classic, my most memorable over the top actor is Charlton Heston. Heston was considered to be one of the greatest actors of his time, but looking at his films now, you can tell a lot of his roles were written as being a lot more subtle. Planet of the Apes is a prime example. While most remember his legendary line "get your paws off me, you damn dirty apes!" or better yet, "You cut up his brain, you bloody baboon!" I remember his reaction to one of his fellow astronaut's placing a miniature American flag in a small mound of rocks on the "mysterious new world" and all Heston had to do was deliver a cynical, perhaps even dry laugh. What does he do instead: he freaking guffaws. He does it again later, again unnecessary (maybe he was high). Oh yeah, and watch him hold his nose as he jumps from the sinking ship into the water. He does little over the top things like this in a lot of his movies. Sometimes the roles he was cast in were over the top just because it was him playing them; it is just weird casting the most red blooded American actor as the Mexican-American hero of an Orson Welles movie. Still though, I'll have to admit he was still a likable, fun movie actor who here and there had his moments of good performances.

Then there are really good actors like Nicholas Cage and Christopher Walken. Though they are very good in serious movies (both have been nominated at the Academy Awards before), they seem to take any role a studio throws at them and play it to the bone. This usually goes along with incorporating their own strange styles and mannerisms into any given role, so they are already a little bit over the top. And by a little bit, I mean "a lot." Nicholas Cage has this semi-smooth yet explosive hyperactivity breaking through the surface in his movies. And Christopher Walken just might be the most memorable actor alive, as well as the most impersonated. His monotone droll has been segued into just about every type of film scenario; he's been a Bond villain, a Batman villain, a scarred soldier, a struggling father, a mischevious hobo, the angel of death (twice), a gangster (god knows how many times), and let's not forget a war veteran delivering a boy a very interesting gold watch. The screen can barely contain these two when they're on, either by sheer awesomeness or absolute craziness. Look up their filmography, or better yet go on youtube and look up some of their craziest moments.

Then of course there is Arnold. Arnold-freaking-Schwarzeneggar. The Austrian body builder who took America by storm in the 80s and hasn't gone away since. We all love him. Is he a good actor though? Well, that's debatable. I mean if you look carefully at--...fine! He's not that good of an actor. I mean, I doubt there was ever a point the people at the Academy Awards were thinking "I think it's Schwarzeneggar's turn this year." They weren't as kind as California. No he's not great, but I still think he's at least good. I mean no one likes someone this much for this long if he's been terrible the entire time. There have been roles where he has played dramatic very well. And as easy as some people believe it to be, playing an emotionless cyborg has to be convincing or else we won't believe it and Arnold pulls it off. But really, he is best being over the top. Sure "Hasta la vista, baby" and "I'll Be Back" are great lines, but we remember the really over the top and cheesy ones moreso. It works well with Arnold because, with that thick Austrian accent, just about every word comes out of his mouth is funny. I mean there's a video editor on Youtube, hh1edits is his tag (look him up he does amazing stuff), who has not one but two ten minute videos just full of Arnold's corny ass or over the top lines. It is priceless. But hey, we love Arnold as is and he really can't get any better...well maybe the people of California would disagree, but I still stand by him.

UNDERPLAY

To put it simply, some actors just don't put forth the effort in their roles. Perhaps they've tricked themselves into thinking they are awesome. This comes down to a lack of emotion or just pure robotic line reading. Either way it can be just as unappealing as overacting.

Here are a few famous examples, all basically the same. Keanu Reeves, known for The Matrix trilogy, is notorious as a, frankly, wooden actor. While I think he has pretty much grown out of his bad acting stage, the majority of people just can't let go of his terrible acting in his early roles. I mean Point Break? Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure? I think the simulated world of the matrix was far more believable. Nowadays, he's either a brooder or a cocky bastard. He's good in each type. If you want to see some of his terrific acting I'd recommend Hard Ball or The Lake House (he cries in both, and is believable).

Kevin Costner is another A-list actor, and also a director and producer, who has starred in plenty of well known films. I think this is a case where it is how he handles certain roles rather than him simply being a bad actor. There are some roles where he is playing soft spoken or distant and ends up being just a boring actor. Other roles where his characters are very much alive and full of energy and he himself is alive and energetic. I really think people give him too hard of a time, but he really isn't bad at all. They give the same shit toward William Hurt (an Oscar nominated actor) who is a favorite of mine, and is also terrific.

There are a few very famous actresses who I've never understood why they were ranked so high at times. Kim Basinger won a Best Actress Oscar for L.A. Confidential (she was good, but not Oscar worthy) when a superb role like the trailer trash mother in 8 Mile is particularly overlooked. Or Halle Berry, who aside from the X-Men movies and Monster's Ball, has not been a particularly memorable actress. Then someone like Ashley Judd, who has more charisma and energy as a charitable activist type than an actress. Just perplexes me. Maybe these actresses' hotness gives them all certain benefits.

MUSICIANS

I have long backed musicians in movie roles. Most of them are pretty good. Rappers in particular have been interesting. Eminem, terrific in 8 Mile. He had real leading man presence, but then again maybe that was because the character was a lot like him. Tupac Shakur seemed to have an at least somewhat promising acting career before he was killed (his last movie had him and Jim Belushi playing dirty cops). 50 Cent was okay in Get Rich or Die Tryin' (a movie I really didn't care for), even if he did mumble his way through it. L.L. Cool J and Jamie Foxx both came into their own and have been very enjoyable. Of course the one we all think of when it comes to rappers turning to acting is the one. The only. Will Smith. The guy gained fame as a rapper, then gained super stardom as a TV star, then was Hollywood royalty as a film actor. Who the hell doesn't love Will Smith? Racists.

Country and rock stars have been so so for the most part. Guys like Gregg Allman (Rush, no band relation) and Keith Richards (Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End) have been good in minor roles. Sting is always memorable as hell; he has true presence, especially as a villain. I know Billy Ray Cyrus and daughter Miley have each dabbled. I actually found Billy Ray to be hilarious in a short cameo as a movie director's wife's lover in Mulholland Dr. a David Lynch movie of course. Speaking of Lynch, Chris Isaak is well known as playing the missing FBI Agent Chester Desmond on the show Twin Peaks and it's movie prequel Fire Walk with Me. Jared Leto, the lead singer for 30 Seconds to Mars, is a terrific and very talented actor. So I guess they are good too in their own ways.

Pop stars are 50/50 and that's all I will say.

WRESTELERS

I surprisingly always back up wrestlers and boxers too. I've always liked Hulk Hogan in movies. I think Roddy Piper was freaking terrific in They Live. Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson has pretty much solidified himself as an actor these days and I think that is freaking great. He is really good. He gets shit roles most days, which is unbelievable since movies like The Rundown (one of the best action movies in years), Walking Tall, and The Scorpion King both sealed him in as THE new action hero. Arnold Schwarzeneggar even cameoed for a second in The Rundown and only had one line while passing by The Rock: "Have fun..." I see that as Arnie informally handing over the rank to The Rock. I think it is great. He has great delivery, can actually read a line, and is amazing in action scenes. Give him more cool movies. NOW.

So there's some categories frequently mocked and downtrodden by uppity critics who think if someone doesn't Tom Hanks or Meryl Streep the hell out of a performance it isn't worth seeing. Well they can go to hell, because if you really look at these guys they aren't that bad. They aren't great but they never go Troll 2 = "They're eating her...And then they're gonna eat me! OH MY GOOOOOOOOOOOOD!!!"... Yeah. And for that we can be thankful. Then again, The Rock did star in Southland Tales. Bad Rock.

So this has been a post from Your Long Absent Guru. Will try to stick around this time. Try! Thanks for reading.

I'm Here Review

"It was the best dream in the history of dreams." - Sheldon

I was very interested to see Spike Jonze's short film, I'm Here. It is a half hour independant romance set in an alternate history where robots exist in our time and are almost as common as a regular human, and act about the same. But being a robot can be very lonely, and two in particular find companionship with each other, despite discovering love's hardships.

The story centers on Sheldon, a polite if not timid robot who works at a library. The highlight of his day is when he is able to get a look at another robot, Francesca, driving in her car near his bus stop. Francesca, a free spirited robot, soon befriends him and they quickly fall in love. She shows him how to live really. The drama of the story is brought about by Francesca's clumsiness (a fatal trait of any robot), and Sheldon's subsequent self-sacrifice to help her. Sacrifices that leave one whole and the other barren, but neither unhappy. It is a very sweet story.

I can see this being up for an Oscar in the future. In such a short time, Spike Jonze is able to introduce to us a very simplistic yet fascinating version of our modern world, and one of the most convincing love stories I've seen in awhile. It is a subtle relationship. You may remember my bashing of Twilight's Edward and Bella chemistry. I claimed the majority of it was basically eye gazing. A lot of Sheldon and Francesca's relationship can be developing through their eyes, but they more take notice of each other's features and actions with complete joy as opposed to Twilight's sort of cold adoration. It is not a silent film, the two talk and talk very humanlike to one another. I especially love their conversations about dreams, which robots apparantly cannot do. The actors who voice Sheldon and Francesca, Andrew Garfield and Sienna Guillory, are especially tremendous. They establish great presence though they may not even be there, and with equally great emotion.

The special effects in this are some of the best I have seen in any kind of cinema lately. This is mainly because I can't even clearly define what kind of special effects it is. A part of me thought the robots were made with very well done CGI. I at first thought they were people in suits, and animatronics after that. I think perhaps the whole figures may have been people in suits (very well designed suits) and the only CGI involved were the mouths and eyes (both very human when conveying emotions). The design of the robots is particularly interesting because they aren't all I'Robot techy. Sheldon looks like he made his head out of a used Macintosh from the 90s; while Francesca looks a bit manniquin like. This makes the robots even more realistic. There is even a moment that I think was meant to be sex between the two, but it was done tastefully and in a sweet kind of way (plug ins through the back of the head).

An aspect worth mentioning would be the soundtrack. Just had to say it, the soundtrack was great. The song "There Are Many of Us" by Aska Matsumiya is used very well as a kind of theme song.

So yes, Spike Jonze, who has made great films like Being John Malkovich, Adaptation, and Where the Wild Things Are in his short career, once again proves he is one of the most talented and perhaps underworked American directors. He also wrote this, which earns him even more respect. I don't often watch short films, but I'm Here is one that caught my interest. I very much enjoyed it. It is a subtle and sweet little movie that tugs at the heart strings in poignant ways.

This has been the first short film review from Your Modest Guru. Thanks for reading.

The Underrated: Malcolm McDowell

"Now let's make things nice and sparkling clear..." - Alex DeLarge

As amazing as it must have been, one still has to think that a problem with playing a character as inevitably iconic, and with such greatness, as Alex DeLarge from A Clockwork Orange would be that people might always think of you as Alex DeLarge from A Clockwork Orange. I disagree however, as Malcolm McDowell, the actor who infamously played the sadistic and gleeful Alex, is still a great actor. Now, okay, I'm sure people don't all think of him just as Alex and nothing else and know he is a good actor. Therefore he wouldn't be considered underrated, right? Well, if this were true and he were rated to the amount he should be, he wouldn't be starring in Rob Zombie's Halloween "revisions" and guest acting on Heroes. The last big budget movie he was in was Book of Eli, and while good, that wasn't a wholly great movie (and he was only a cameo near the end).

McDowell's portrayal of Alex reminds me a lot of, and probably inspired a lot of, Heath Ledger's portrayal as The Joker. They both play twisted and relentless men of unspeakable violence and unimaginable joy, violence and joy that the actors seem to be taking and putting their own brand on to an untterly convincing effect. After The Dark Knight, Ledger would no doubt have been showered with other big parts (he was even getting some and completed some during filming) had he not died. One would think the same thing would have happened to Malcolm McDowell, who's character and performance were even greater in many ways. This might not have happened because of the backlash against A Clockwork Orange when it first hit the theatres. It was given an X-rating and banned in England after all. Stanley Kubrick, the visionary director behind the movie, soon rejected the movie and McDowell as well after the negative criticism (Stanley you were a master, but you were also a fucking prick sometimes). So instead of getting Shakespearan roles and big name villains afterward, McDowell got Caligula, a movie that started out a historical epic before morphing into a sleazy and tasteless porno that was later known as one of the most bashed and hated movies of all time.

There were good roles after the initial reaction to ACO, like his creepy part in Cat People, a thriller that is all kinds of strange. He's done some cameo work in raunchy cartoon shows like South Park and Robot Chicken. Most notably though, he took the role once dominated by Donald Pleasance: Dr. Sam Loomis from the Halloween series. Though Zombie's retelling of the first Halloween was pretty damn weak, McDowell was great as Loomis because he played a different kind of Loomis. Don't get me wrong Donald Pleasance's Loomis is perfect and my favorite, but he does come across not at all like a doctor and more of a badass version of that standard old guy in horror movies who goes around moaning "You're doomed. You're all dooooomed!!!" McDowell's Loomis seemed like a believeable child psychiatrist. He cared about his patient, but was later opportunistic when time came to make money off of him and write a book. His later transition to Pleasance's style made sense but didn't feel right. So McDowell did a good job as Dr. Loomis not because he played a big hero but because he played a believeable doctor.

A part I am more impressed with is McDowell's portrayal as one of the main villians of season one of Heroes. McDowell played Daniel Linderman, an Ozymandias type of anti-hero who believes destroying New York City can play a part in bringing the world to a state of peace. I found it ironic he played a villain mainly because his power was healing (not very villainous). Still, in the few times Linderman was there he was one of my favorite characters. He had an air of wisdom and knowledge but at the same time was an obvious manipulator. While on his own level of corruption, McDowell brought some subtle nuances of humanity that really worked. He was a fun character on the show. Fortunately he only starred in the seasons that were really cool, as opposed to the ones that were really bad.

The point is the same as any of these posts: why is this guy underrated? He's a great actor who is never given a role big enough or noticeable enough to show that off. I'm looking forward to watching a movie of his from a few years back called Gangster No. 1, in which he plays an older version of Paul Bettany's hoodlum character. Looks very good. Give Malcolm McDowell good roles, he's an old man it's not like he just needs time to blossom. If you don't, then I say great bolshy yarblockos to you!!!

This has been another edition of the Underrated from Your Modest Guru. Thanks for reading.

The Scream Lantern

Okay I've watched two new trailers that have just recently come out. And they both originate from very pop culture friendly franchises. The trailer for the superhero movie The Green Lantern, and the fourth installment of the Scream horror series. I will review both.

THE GREEN LANTERN

"Green Lanterns are supposed to be fearless, but I'm not." - Hal Jordan

Okay, so awhile back actor Ryan Reynolds was propositioned to star in the lead of either one of two superhero movies: one was as the classic DC Comics super friend Green Lantern, the other as Marvel Comics' infamous snarky anti-hero Deadpool, whom he played briefly in X-Men Origins: Wolverine. To our disappointment, he went with Green Lantern (I won't give up hope on a Deadpool movie though).

Now watching the trailer for The Green Lantern, I couldn't help but be reminded of a Marvel superhero who was in a movie (actually two) recently. The Human Torch from Fantastic Four. I mean Reynolds plays Hal Jordan, a US military pilot who spends his literal down time slacking, bedding beautiful women, and being a jokester (Flame on!). But when stranded in the desert, Jordan comes into contact with an extraterrestrial spacecract, manned by a wounded member of The Green Lantern Corps. Dying, the alien gives Jordan his ring of power (not the Tolkien one, people) and bestows upon him the title of Green Lantern. Not having enough time to register this dick move, Jordan starts learning of his powers as a GL, meets up with a whole society full of others, finds a nemesis in a strange looking Peter Skarsgaard, and a romance in Blake Lively's character who as near as I can tell is playing a bad actress (drum tap).

I will say that the story looks fairly decent and Reynolds, one of this century's best young actors, is really good and believeable as ever as Green Lantern. And surprisingly the Green Lantern suit, which is completely CGI, was better than I expected. It's not great and it's clearly CG, but it is just better. Most of the CGI I'm seeing in this does look pretty damn stupid. It's straight out of Phantom Menace-land, a term I very often say as of this post. That and... (sigh) Blake Lively. I mean come on, Blake, you just blew me away in The Town, you are a decent albeit sexy actress, you only have two lines in this trailer, and you bring my expectations down 25%? Don't be as bad as this trailer suggests.

So yeah, I may end up seeing this at some point and I may not. It's just iffy for the moment.

Now, onto...

SCREAM 4

"There's something really scary about a guy with a knife who just...snaps." - whoever the hell Kristen Bell is playing

So after another apparantly horrible outing behind the writer and director's with the recent My Soul to Take, sometime horror master Wes Craven teams up with screenwriter Kevin Williamson again for a fourth Scream movie. Before I begin, let me say that I love the Scream trilogy. They are smart, funny, suspenseful, and very intense modern horror movies. I still enjoy the hell out of watching them. That being said, this new movie looks like shit.

The lines presented appear horrible, the acting appears horrible, and whatever story they've tried to hash out appears horrible. They've got most of the principle cast members back: Neve Campbell, David Arquette, Courtney Cox, and the iconic Ghostface voice Roger L. Jackson. None of them feel right. There is also quite a few new additions to the cast of course. Emma Roberts and Hayden Panetierre appear to be either sexy new heroines or cannon fodder for the killer. Kristen Bell and Anna Paquin, both really good actresses, seem to be playing...well, blondes as far as I can tell. Rory Culkin and the lead singer of Crash and the Boys from Scott Pilgrim are playing what I'm calling the Twin Randys, cause all they do is explain the new horror movie survival rules. Adam Brody is here as well, he's usually good, though I don't know if this will help.
So yeah, it looks bad. Unless there's a theatrical trailer that will come out and prove me wrong, I'm gonna be very pissed off about this movie. Why? Because I had high hopes for it, even after My Soul to Take's negative reviews. This looks like a franchise ruiner. Old characters and eye candy aside, it is still probably gonna be horrible. I guess maybe it's because Wes Craven and Kevin Williamson can only have so few successes in the film industry. I mean Wes Craven has made some spectacular films like A Nightmare on Elm St., Serpent and the Rainbow, People Under the Stairs, and Red Eye, but I'm told he's made a lot more bad movies that I was lucky enough to stay away from. And Kevin Williamson was a good writer, but the first two Screams and Dawson's Creek creator credit doesn't save him for Cursed, another Craven fail as well. I mean, goddamn, the trailer looks like a low rent film by the guys who made Meet the Spartans, but like if they were trying to take it seriously. No way, not for me. I just hope I'm wrong and the movie is somehow glorious.

So yeah, check out these trailers and soak em up and see what you think because I know where I stand. One looks decent, one looks disquieting. Have a ball.

This has been some polarized trailer reviewing from Your Modest Guru. Thanks for reading.

Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear thoughts

"We live in hard times, not end times." - Jon Stewart

For those...I don't know, two of you wondering why Your Modest Guru hasn't been posting lately and missed his Halloween themed posts, I will have you know I was recuperating after a long vacation. This vacation is one that brought me to many states I had yet to visit, but my primary missions on the trip, and that of the captain of the trip, my grandfather, was to make it for Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert's Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear in Washington D.C. and then straight down to Florida to watch the Discovery space shuttle launch for its last time. Unfortunately we were only able to see one of those happen and that was the rally (typical NASA wasting my time with bah! safety measures).

Possibly in a parody to Political Media mogul and lunatic Glenn Beck's Rally to Restore Honor (no, no that's not a joke) as well as Al Sharpton's retaliation against Beck with his Reclaim the Dream rally, Jon Stewart had been planning a rally for people to get together and sort of just weed out all of the drama, all of the bullshit, all of the insanity that plagues this country every damn day. Stephen Colbert co-hosted in his satirical right wing persona as the man presenting the arguement for fear mongering in America (the Glenn Becks, if you will). As I am told, Stewart and Colbert expected a turnout of at 100, 000 to 150,000 people at the most to show up in the National Mall. It ended up being approximately 215,000 people, the ones who could make it, of course.


I was in the thick of it and it was quite a sight. It was a collection of people of numerous ethnicities, religions, and cultures, all together, tolerant and peaceful with each other. I suppose I shouldn't go into too much detail, seeing as how I had very long range view of one of the jumbotrons, my whole body was worn out from standing up so long, and summaries of the rally can be found from numerous internet sources. Still I will get my thoughts out there.

First off the musical guests were all top notch people. From the rally long performance of The Roots (with John Legend in the beginning) to the trio performance of Kid Rock, Sheryl Crow, and a recorded T.I., they were all wonderful. My favorite instance would most definitely have to be the unconventional duet of Yusuf Islam (formerly Cat Stevens) and Ossie Osbourne, playing back to back and back again their respective songs Peace Train (for Stewart's side) and Crazy Train (for Colbert's side); and The OJs following up with Love Train just topped it off. And though the music was good, it did seem to drag on a little too much (the opening act especially), but then again that's how I feel at concerts. Yes I know, I'm stupid. Still dragging or not, the music and the performers were top notch.

The comedy, which is what I imagine people were waiting for during the music, was very good. Stewart and Colbert can come off as cheesy out of their television element, but they are still very funny and clever. And the guests, ranging from Sam Waterson and his reading of Colbert's fear poem to the beloved R2-D2, were all stellar. The Sanity/Fear Awards were certainly entertaining. A couple of my favorite moments were when Anderson Cooper's tight T-shirt was awarded as well as the Qu'ran rescuing hippie from our latest 9/11's proposed Burn a Qu'ran Day (I love that the guy tossed his award into the crowd). Then of course the basis for the whole damn rally, the sanity against fear warfare between Stewart and Colbert. Colbert had some of the biggest highlights including his montage of media based fear mongering and his Fearzilla puppet that attacked the stage, defeated with the Pan-like assistance of hilarious Stewart co-host John Oliver. And who can forget for the rest of their days Stewart and Colbert's absolutely horrible attempt to sing their own song, The Greatest, Strongest Country in the World. The signs were also funny, and there were plenty of signs. My favorite one, and arguably one of the most simple, read "Calm the F*ck Down." Glorious.

The main highlight of the event was no doubt Jon Stewart's final speech to the massive crowd. It was from the heart and made plenty of sense. In tumultuous times like these, people should not be so bent on rocking the boat or just acting crazy or stupid. This get together was obviously important to him and turned out far greater than he ever expected.

The rally as a whole was an unregretable experience. It was amazing being there and the feeling that people were that ready to be good to one another and not try to get vicious about anything. It is true indeed that in a time when so much badness is going on that a bunch of us sane Americans can get together and say tell the world to Calm the F*ck Down. For a guy like me, it could be one of those once in a lifetime things, so I am no doubt holding this as a dear memory. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go through the rally crowd photos and see if I can find myself. Haha, just kidding...or am I? Yes.

This has been a return from another freaking long absence from Your Modest Guru. Thanks for reading, especially since my next post will more than likely have to unwrapped on Christmas.

Top 8 Reasons Dexter is not a monster

"I live my life in hiding. My survival depends on it." - Dexter Morgan

(MAJOR SPOILERS; but if you don't plan to watch the show then I guess you won't mind)

I love Dexter. It is one of the smartest, edgiest, and most supenseful and fun shows on television. You will recall that it was in my top 3 TV shows. In case you haven't heard, Dexter centers around the titular Dexter Morgan, a mild mannered blood spatter analyst for the Miami Police Department who moonlights as a vigilante serial killer. The show focuses on his attempts to juggle a social life with family and friends while also satisfying his psychotic urges by murdering Miami's worst killers, as per a code taught to him by his cop father. Now a main element of the series that has thrived even into the fifth and current season is the mystery as to whether or not Dexter's good nature is merely an act, a building emotion, or true feelings. I'd go with the last, but here are my reasons for why.

8. He kills the evil people

Simple enough, right? If Dexter was merely a psychotic killing machine, he would have disregarded his father's code and satisfied his desires in any way he pleased. I would doubt even the sickest serial killers would want to take up the task of thoroughly investigating someone almost or just as dangerous as they are, stalking, and then killing them. Too much work, and very often risky. The fact that he has stuck with the code with such discipline and devotion, and his often strict and serious no-innocents policy, are not solid but they do make humanity somewhat evident.

7. Admittance

As the late-great and fictional John Locke once said "Crazy people don't know they're crazy, they think they're getting saner." Dexter knows he is a psychopath. He admits it very often, even to the people around him in very subtle ways. The fact that he knows, and is ashamed of the fact, that he does horrible things (killing bad guys is understandable, but there is also dismemberment) is very thoughtful for a man claiming to be an emotionless monster.

6. His longing for normalcy

One thing Dexter has always wished for is to be like everyone else. This is a wish that so far has always been so close and then taken away from him. Granted, Dexter's last nemesis, the terrifying Arthur Mitchell, also wanted to be normal and good (unlike Dexter, he never really tried). Still, because Dexter hasn't taken much pride in what he does and would give it all up if he could is a sign of humanity.

5. Sense of right and wrong

The main thing Dexter looks for in his ventures is evil, and if you've done murder you're done. Dexter doesn't let the murder of an innocent slide, not even for himself (he doesn't kill himself but the deaths do haunt him). The fact that he abides by that standard of good and evil, right and wrong that all people abide by is more proof that he is good.

4. Dreams

When his victims were found at the bottom of the sea, and the identities revealed, Dexter, called simply "The Bay Harbor Butcher" was given somewhat of a hero status. A comic book was made inspired by his deeds called "The Dark Defender." Dexter liked the idea of being a hero. Even if he does usually see himself in a negative light, he clearly knows and seems to feel at ease at the fact that he is ridding the world of true evil. Sounds like a hero to me, even if his method is vicious.

3. Kindness

Many of the people in his life (though they don't know what he does in his spare time) look upon Dexter as a true friend and an important part of their lives. His foster sister Debra sees him as the "strong one" and her best friend. Angel Batista and Vince Masuka, his cop colleagues, are probably the closest people he has to actual buddies, who both admire, respect, and appreciate him. Even his boss, Maria Laguerta, who at first only had a twisted kind of crush on him began to truly care about him. Of course the biggest impact he had was on the love of his life, Rita. He met her while she was broken and weak, and through their relationship and his being there for her (passive as it was for him in the beginning) built her up and made her a strong, confident woman again. All of this proves that Dexter doesn't have to kill the bad guys to make people's lives better.

2. Guilt

Dexter has done many things in his life that he has felt extremely guilty for. Notably when he kills innocents, Dexter is in a frantic and sort of dumbfounded state where he can't even mask his guilt and shame while in front of people. I would say however in the few times he did kill "innocents" they were usually innocent of murder (which is what he kills for) and another was a mercy killing. Then there are times when the people he really does love are hurt because of him. He murdered his long lost homicidal brother, the one person who would understand him, accept him, and love him unconditionally, in order to protect the other people in his life. After learning that him becoming the instrument of justice his foster father and mentor originally actually drove the man to suicide, Dexter was in a completely depressed and confused state. He felt his whole life was a mistake. Or very recently when his own selfishness got the woman he loved killed, Dexter murdered a vulgar stranger and then screamed his lungs out in anguish (and you could feel the pain and sense of failure he had). The monster Dexter so often described himself as would not feel guilty about anything.

1. Love

Dexter does love. He had love for his father, the mother he never knew, the brother he had to kill, the sister whose always stuck by him, the woman he loved and lost, the children he's helped to raise, his own son as well. Dexter has always thought he couldn't love, but that was because he felt someone like him didn't deserve it. He cared deeply about his foster father and was always trying to make him proud in his own twisted way. He of course loves his sister, who he always backs up whenever he can and has even killed his own blood to protect her. Then there is Rita and her kids Astor and Cody. He grew to love them all over time; he was especially enraged and terrified whenever an enemy would target them. Dexter has always had a kinship with children as they sort of represent his lost innocence as a child, so he was great with Astor and Cody. He eventually arrived at a point where disappointing Rita made him feel "like the scum of the earth." and often made strides to embrace the good she saw in him. Rita was his hope and the aforementioned anguish and pain he felt after she died because of him was proof of his love for her. Dexter has a lot of love to give and usually gets it right. I think if anything love will be his guiding light, the factor that saves him in the end.

So yes, I think any Dexter fan should be able to tell that he is not a monster, more of a necessary evil. He is a good man with a bit more darkness inside than most others. Still, I would be lying if I said the world would be a better place without him. The one thing people who do or don't watch the show can grasp, the one thing those who are intrigued or disgusted by the serial killer aspect can't deny: the people he kills deserve it and got it coming.

This is the first of hopefully several Dexter posts from Your Modest Guru. Thanks for reading.

Movie Trailers 3

Round 3 of my summing up of some recent trailers that have come to light. I will of course give my opinion, so you can judge from that and ask yourself whether you might want to see these movies. Not much more to say, so here we go.

DUE DATE:
Though this movie has Robert Downey, Jr. and Jamie Fox, who are both terrific, and Zach Galifinakias (know I'm spelling that wrong) who is pretty damn funny, I think this looks kinda lame. I mean I'm getting used to trailers showcasing 70 percent of the freaking movie, but when it gives away what looks like every good joke or surprise, how do you expect me to keep interest. That and some of the lines, mostly from Galifinakias, just seem totally weak. Still these guys are capable of great comedy and a lot of this does look funny. I don't know whether or not I should try this out, though I know a great many will.

THE DILEMMA:
I was very surprised to find this was a Ron Howard film; then again, I guess he did do How The Grinch Stole Christmas time upon a once. Still this looks pretty good, Vince Vaughn and Kevin James play two best friends who love the fact they have the perfect double date thing going on with their two perfect wives, Jennifer Connelly (son of a bitch!) and Wynona Ryder (son of a bitch!). It is perfect only until Vaughn discovers Ryder is having an affair with a younger man (Channing Tatum, for you ladies) behind James' back. This has the makings of a good movie because The Dilemma actually has a good dilemma; should Vaughn tell James about his wife's infidelity? Would it be a betrayal to tell him the truth and destroy a marriage or to say nothing and let the deception last? There are even guns and fist fights in the movie. It has potential. The only downsides are the majority of the trailer is devoted to a bad case of poison ivy Vaughn gets in the film that screws up his bladder (it was kinda funny though because it seemed like Vaughn was trying to stay on the primary dilemma). And secondly, how do these two seriously get such hot wives; and it's not just in this movie, they have a damn track record (Vaughn in Wedding Crashers and Old School, James in King of Queens and Hitch). Maybe chicks really do like guys who are just funny. Maybe Seth MacFarlane and Judd Apatow's frequent pairing of babes with slobs is rubbing off on our culture. If so, there's gonna be a great many lucky guys in this world.

TANGLED:
An upcoming Disney animated film, Tangled seems to be taking that old fairy tale story of Rapunzel and throwing into, well, the Disney style. Our heroine with the elongated hair and our hero who climbs up the elongated hair begin in that Han and Leia phase it seems and their adventure begins as hijinks ensue. Though the trailer gives way too much away, leaves no real mystery to how the story will play out, and it even pretty cliche at times, it still looks really fun and funny. With the voices of Zachary Levi and Mandy Moore in the leads, I think Tangled could be a very enjoyable Disney movie.

THE TEMPEST:

The Tempest right off looks like a movie I will like. I love new takes on old classics. Though I've read very little Shakespeare, his work is kind of alluring, and this is his last work so there's that as well. The stories can be revised in so many unique ways. The story features several colorful and unique characters as they get into misadventures on a tropical island (a storyline I am in no way familiar with). Many of the characters seem to be terrorized or manipulated by the sorceress Prospera (Helen Mirren, playing what was originally a male character). A great cast is in this: David Straitherin, Alan Cumming, Chris Cooper, and Bill Conti play Prospera's apparent shady victims; Russell Brand and Alfred Molina play a couple of weird, idiotic, but mostly hedonistic wanderers; Ben Whisha is a violent supernatural entity; and Djimoun Honsou is Prospera's eccentric island rival Caliban. The director is Julie Taymor, who directed another revisionist Shakespeare story, Titus, to much acclaim. This looks pretty good, engrossing. Some thought provoking fantasy perhaps, with themes defined as only Shakespeare could.

THE TOURIST:

This looks like a good thriller again because of the cast. Johnny Depp, Angelina Jolie, and Paul Bettany. Depp plays a regular tourist seduced by an alluring femme fatale (Jolie) into a North by Northwest type of scenario, while a determined agent (Bettany) strives to solve this mystery. The trailer gets the fundamentals in: Depp is seduced, framed, on the run, and yet still can't seem to not trust Jolie (well as good as she looks neither would I), but the nature of what is happening isn't clearly stated. Still it looks witty and action packed, not to mention well directed. It's got people I like saying and doing things I think are cool. I like the fact that Depp is being the nervous Cary Grant character while Jolie is the mysterious badass, when first hearing about the film I thought it'd be the other way around (either that or a Mr. and Mrs. Smith type movie); I suppose, though, Depp is more fun when he's frantic and Jolie is more fun when she's luscious and lethal. Might have to check it out sometime.

LEGACY:

Legacy looks like my kind of thriller. Suspenseful, enigmatic, claustrophobic, good action, intriguing performers, and an interesting story. The plot involves an ex-black ops commando (Idris Elba) on the run from bad guys and possibly even his old comrades. He is held up in a hotel room, living in fear, and being contacted by various people, including an old lover, friends, journalists, and his politician brother. The trailer isn't loud and action packed (though there is action scenes), it is more atmospheric and visual friendly. It gets the fundamentals down but makes them intriguing; I'm invested in Elba's character just watching the trailer, that's the mark of a good trailer. This looks like the first time I will really enjoy Idris Elba's acting, I've seen a few of his movies and his fine performance as Stringer on The Wire, but this is one where he looks particularly intriguing. Clarke Peters from The Wire is also in the movie, so that's awesome too. I am very interested, it looks intense as hell.

YOGI BEAR:

...This is not my expertise. Well, kids are gonna like it I suppose. They got Dan Ackroyd and Justin Timberlake as Yogi and Booboo. So that's weird, but they seem to be pulling it off. From a kid's point of view this probably looks like some good cheesy fun with talking animated animals, but my adult mind is telling me this could either pan out as decent children's film or The Country Bears 2 (shudder).

THE DEBT:

Here might be a really thrilling thriller aka espionage actioner. The story deals with two timelines, one which deals with young Mossad operatives (Jessica Chastain, Sam Worthington, Martin Csokas) who are on a secret mission to capture a Nazi war criminal in the 1960s. The other timeline focuses on the now older operatives (Helen Mirren, Ciarin Hinds, Tom Wilkinson) in the present as they are revered for their actions during the mission. I think the main plot comes about when proof arises that they actually made a horrible mistake during the mission (which we will no doubt so play out in the past) and have to make sure whatever secret they kept stays kept. The Debt looks intense, shadowy, and subtle, a bit like Legacy. Plus there are actors here that I like, which you've been and will keep hearing a lot.

HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS:

Okay, I've never been that interested in the Harry Potter series, book or film. I stopped watching around the fourth or fifth film because it was just kinda repetitive to me. Maybe I will follow up and watch the whole damn series at some point, like I plan to do with Twilight. Still no matter what old reservations I have for this series, this trailer looks epic as hell. I don't even know what the hell is going on but it looks cool. I only know that the pivotal fight that they were building up to since Philosopher's Stone between Harry and Lord Voldemort is gonna come to a head. A friend once described the ending of the book series to me, because these kinds of fans can't help it, and I had a hard time understanding (and this is the guy who thought Lost made sense). Still with cool visuals, locations, special effects, and a cast of just about every European actor or actress I adore, and of course a series fans around the world are in love with, I don't think this movie can go wrong.

SKYLINE:

Okay, this is one of my many cases where the teaser trailer for the film looks far greater than the theatrical trailer. Remember Inception's teaser which gave little to no clue as to what the movie was gonna be about, just that it was gonna be freaking amazing? Yeah, that's what I mean. Both trailers feature city-folk looking up in awe as alien ships begin hovering over every other roof everywhere, open up those doors of theirs, and start sucking people in. Now you just leave it at that, I'm in. But the theatrical came along and ruined that image. It keeps the image and a few other cool visuals, but then it goes on into clear bad acting, overly cliche story, and action that crosses War of the Worlds with Snakes on a Plane. It has actors I like, sure, like the underutilized Eric Balfour, Donald Faison from Scrubs, and the great David Zayas from Dexter, but even they don't seem to be saving this movie. The monster effects are shit too. So yeah, Skyline, you had me going there for a second, then you just went and cheesed it up. Hope I'm wrong.

THE ROOMMATE:

Single White Female much? This is indeed a pretty clear remake of Barbet Schroeder's Single White Female, only set in a college campus. So our recently crowned Sexiest Woman Alive, Minka Kelly, stars as a new student in your standard dream movie college. She has a nice roommate, Rebecca (Leighton Meester), goes to flashy night clubs, and even has a cute guy (Cam Gigandet). It all seems perfect, until it turns out her roommate is obessessed with her and will do anything to keep her for herself. Then the horror, oh the horror, begins. Though this trailer has some really intense and scary moments, it is hard to take seriously. I can handle the spiritual remake aspect mostly because I haven't seen Single White Female, but you know the story. For one thing, key scares from classic horror movies and thrillers are rehashed here; the Rebecca chick fades in out of darkness behind the heroine like Michael did in Halloween, stabs a guy to death during sex like in Basic Instinct, there is that cool "Go check it out!" shot taken from The Shining, then of course the trademark stalker stare. Also, I can't take Leighton Meester, the uppercrust Blair from Gossip Girl, as a friendless psycho. Why? She is hot as hell, even when trying not to be; more like 200 friends on Facebook. Oh yeah and for us guys there is apparently a kiss scene between Kelly and Meester (there's something to look forward to). The thing that really freaked me out is that my friend is in college and her roommate was a chick named Rebecca (watch your back, jk jk).

HOBO WITH A SHOTGUN:

This looks like a grindhouse movie that'll put the actual Grindhouse movie in it's shadow. Hobo with a Shotgun is based off of the Canadian faux trailer submitted to Grindhouse for its collection of faux trailers. Now it has evolved into a full blown, crazy ass movie. The movie looks like a collection of hardcore violence and action. It puts Rutger Hauer as the Hobo in a city that is on a fast track to Fallout 3 territory. He finds a shotgun, sees the violence corrupting his world, has nothing better to do. The choice looks simple. So we pit the Hobo against the cities worst and it looks like cartoonishly graphic exploitation at its strangest. I mean, I really don't know whether to watch it or shy away from it. It looks too crazy actually, but in a good way. The one thing that really sells me on it is Rutger Hauer, an actor who will never cease to be intimidating and awesome. The trailer mainly features a monologue he gives to a hospital nursery full of newborn babies, as he bitterly laments their likely bad futures. It'll be good just to see him be a badass again. I am pumped as hell.

THE GOON:

Based off of the popular comic book (which I've not read unfortunately), The Goon is an animated film that will feature too cartoonish but nevertheless badass partners, the musclebound and gruff Goon (Clancy Brown) and the stout and talkative Franky (Paul Giamatti) as they go to work fighting supernatural forces. The trailer shows their daily activities: passing beers and playing games around a bar, killing zombies, and looking back on the old days when vices weren't as messy. The last featuring The Goon and Franky piling through a street filled with zombies, firing off tommy guns and swinging baseball bats to the sound of country rock sold me. It is also being produced by David Fincher. It looks like a fun, graphic, and clever little movie.

SUCKER PUNCH:

From the mind of Zach Snyder, here comes a movie that looks freaking awesome but doesn't make a lot of sense to me. I won't try to describe Snyder's premise so here's some things featured in the trailer that will catch people's interest: guns, swords, WWII, mental patients, gangsters, robots, dragons, samurai, martial arts, gun fu, 50s culture, and, above all else, a cast of scantily clad young women who can kick some ass. And every nerd in the world jizzed in their pants. The main cast of girls include Emily Browning, Vanessa Hudgens, Jena Malone, Abbie Cornish, and Jamie Chung, as well as Carla Gugino, Scott Glenn, and Jon Hamm supporting. Sucker Punch looks like every style choice Snyder has ever put into a film evolved times ten and thrown together to make a CGI laced action picture that looks as if it seeks to outdo Sin City or 300 or even Kung Fu Hustle. I mean all the trailer really is is action, pure, fast paced, and heavy hitting. And damn if I am not ready for it.

BLACK SWAN:

Okay, now this looks fucking crazy. The trailer seriously freaked me out. This is Darren Aronofsky's new film, a psychological thriller centered around a paranoid star ballet dancer (Natalie Portman). Portman's character has been rising high in the ballet industry. Succeeding a previous star (Wynona Ryder), she becomes her handsome director's (Vincent Cassel) grand pupil. Her insecurity kicks in on a dangerous level however when the director seems to have found a new rising star in another dancer (Mila Kunis), resulting in a possibly unstable state of mind. The trailer features such surreal, horrifying imagry that I imagine it will be hard to sit through this movie. The last visual suggests a Cronenberg-esque body horror aspect. Aronofsky's direction, no matter the genre he pursues, seems to be very stark and powerful. The acting looks tremendous, Natalie Portman in a type of role I don't think I've seen her in before, looking frantic. Mila Kunis needs a role in a movie that looks this dark and edgy, a right career move. The supporting cast of Vincent Cassel, Wynona Ryder, and Barbara Hershey will no doubt add to the movie's success and outcome. I think this movie looks like a haunting, surreal, thought provoking thriller. I will definitely want to see it. One thing though: does every film these days have to feature a lesbian kiss? Is it like an obligation? Don't get me wrong, I am just as ready for a Portman/Kunis lip-locking anytime, but still I just find it odd. I think it's probably just a cheap route to draw male audiences in (and its working, though the movie looks great anyway). Maybe trailers should feature more kisses between gay men; somehow I think the result would come back negative?

HEREAFTER:

Clint Eastwood's new film, and most times that's all I'd need to say. For the past 20 years, Eastwood has in more ways than one confronted life and death within his films, and with Hereafter it seems as if he is making a film primarily about the subject. It centers around various people who have had different experiences with death, as we all have. Many of these people look to a once renowned spirit medium (Matt Damon) for help, but he has his own troubled conscience to deal with. The subject of death is particularly interesting for a film to base itself around, especially since we all think about whatever hereafter there might actually be. If it's Eastwood I'd imagine this is gonna be a bold, emotional, compelling movie that definitely leaves an impression like the majority of his movies. Though I certainly hope this won't be his last one.

TRUE GRIT:

I know I will have to see the John Wayne original beforehand, but still how can I not be totally pumped for this movie. A remake of the classic western, revisioned by the masters of the craft, The Coen Brothers, and featuring Jeff Bridges as the A Number 1 badass. I'm in all the way. With Matt Damon and Josh Brolin in the supporting cast, this just looks like a terrific western and I'm glad as hell that there are still terrific westerns (it's just a totally classic genre). So yes only three words needed to sum up why this movie is gonna be great: Coens, Bridges, Western.

127 HOURS:

I think this might be the movie I'm looking forward to the most. Based on a true story, Aron Ralston (James Franco) is a young adventurer always looking for new obstacles in far away places. During a hiking trip in the desolate terrain of Utah in 2003, he literally gets stuck between a rock and a hard place when his arm is crushed by a boulder while between a narrow canyon wall. Low on supplies, with no help coming, Aron will be forced to go to the extremes in order to survive. Though having a cast with Treat Williams, Amber Tamblyn, Kate Mara, and Clemence Poesey on the side, the movie will primarily feature a solo act from the great James Franco. For a movie about a guy stuck in one place, it looks intense and exciting as hell. I unfortunately know the outcome of this story however. I can't imagine how its gonna be on film, but I'm sure it will be effective. This is the latest film from the master filmmaker Danny Boyle, director of Trainspotting, 28 Days Later, and Slumdog Millionaire. I am excited as hell for this movie. It looks amazing.

So those are some recent trailers to movies coming our way soon or a little ways down the road. But these are just my opinions, you have yours and I advise you to see what you want.

The Underrated: Freddy Got Fingered

"Argh! My characters are lame, my characters are lame! I'm a loser! I WISH I WAS DEAD!!!" - Gordon "Gord" Brody

For those who have actually seen the film, and are about to turn away from this article in disgust, allow me to plead my case. I watched the Tom Green written, produced, directed, and starred movie Freddy Got Fingered a long time ago and then rewatched it a year or so back. I liked it both times. I then came to realize that I was in the minority having liked it. I wouldn't even say I "liked" it now as I have a fresher opinion on it. Putting a thinking man's analytical sights on this movie, I've come up with a bit of a reasonable argument for why, like it or hate it, this film is not necessarily terrible and why it is, indeed, underrated.

A brief synopsis: The film stars Tom Green as Gordy, a slacker in his mid-to-late thirties who cycles back in forth to pursuing his dream of being a cartoon show artist and part time cheese sandwich factory worker to returning home in failure to his disappointed parents. It already sounds a little absurd and a little dramatic, but Gordy embraces every failure, every misstep as if it were a new opportunity to change the world in some ridiculous way that is even worse than his bigger "goals." This leads him on a very strange and deranged journey to find himself and make peace with his father, played by a very eccentric and angry Rip Torn. I won't lie there are some very stupid, mind boggling, disgusting, twisted, and just absolutely horrifying things that go on in this movie. Things that, if viewed back to back, would make you wonder why the movie isn't rated far lower than it already is. But again, there is my case.

First I will quote Roger Ebert in his damnening review of the film: "The day may come when Freddy Got Fingered is seen as a milestone for neo-surrealism. The day may never come when it is seen as funny." I can agree as much as I can disagree. The film is no doubt surreal in its own way. But I am one who always says that certain things can be seen as funny if the audience can accept the context in which it is trying to be funny. That being said, Freddy Got Fingered is in the retarded complex. Please, don't take offense to my usage of the word "retard," if you've seen the film you'll know I'm not wrong.

I do in fact label this movie as retarded. Despite what we may think, there are very few things we can label films these days. We mostly constrict labels to old genres. In that sense, I don't necessarily see Freddy Got Fingered as a comedy. I honestly think it can be seen as a horror movie as much as a comedy. I will describe a few "jokes" in the movie: the movie opens with Gordy laying on a bed narrating some actually well done drawings, losing focus and giggling at his own story in dopey glee; in the wake of his failures he pretends to be a scuba diver looking for teasure in his shower, or constructing a device that allows him to play piano (badly) while dangling stringed up sausages in front of his mouth to eat with not hands; he accidentally kills, purposefully mutilates, and wears a moose in order to "get inside his characters"; a go-lucky kid is horrifically injured throughout the film; Gordy at one point delivers a baby, swings it around a room by its umbilical cord, then chews the cord off; near the end of the film he somehow jerks off an elephant to a grotesque effect. People laugh at this, I laughed at this. We aren't laughing because it is funny, we are laughing because it is absurd, or laughable; we can't take it seriously. And because we cannot take it seriously, we can laugh; we accept the film's twisted sense of humour, or sense of story.

I justify the "retarded" label because the things Green's character does and the situations he gets in are absolutely ludicrous, stupid, and even disturbing. But to see it is to be overcome with an urge to laugh because it is ludicrous, because it is stupid. The disturbing part is just the bad after-taste. Even the title doesn't make sense; the "Freddy got fingered" plot point is pretty miniscule in comparison to the other things that happen in the movie. From one point of view, yes, Freddy Got Fingered is a bad film. I watch and I know it is a bad film. But why then should it be a hated film? There are plenty of bad movies that are absolutely beloved by some people. This movie is like the Eraserhead of the Y Generation; it is absurd, but creative in its absurdity. Creativity is beginning to be a hard thing to come by in Hollywood. I would much rather watch Freddy Got Fingered for sheer amazement and shock/entertainment value then Vampires Suck, a movie that you can tell from promotional material is going to be horrendous and not even entertaining (save for the people and fandom it is mocking, ironically). When it comes down to it, would you rather watch a bland bad movie or an out of this world bad movie?

Now, a hater would immediately jump to conclude that I must be some kind of cult fan of the movie or something. Not at all. Just because I saw the movie, realized what it was, ran with it, and enjoyed it doesn't mean I rank it with comedy classics like Dr. Strangelove, Annie Hall, and The Jerk. I just saw it differently then other people. So I don't think I quite like it just for how retarded it is, but the ambition behind its retarded outcome. Freddy Got Fingered is underrated in relation to the aspects I have detailed above. Do I recommend it, that depends on what you thought of this article.

This has been the longest Underrated article thus far from Your Modest Guru. Thanks for reading.

The Event: Premiere Review

Okay, I'll admit, even I was a little intrigued by the enigmatic promos for this new NBC show. The show's own title was a slogan: "WHAT IS THE EVENT?" Though I knew it would more than likely be one of the many ambitious shows that will try to imitate my favorite (you know the one), I still figured why not give it a chance. Maybe this one will succeed where others failed and live up to what it tries to be, or, better yet, become something of its own. With that, I've watched the first two episodes of The Event.

(Possible spoilers)

STORY

I was just shaking my head and rolling my eyes a lot after a bombardment of familiar set pieces appeared such as a sunny Island where bad things are going down and an airplane in peril. I was wondering if they were even trying.

One thing you will notice right off the bat is that this show is extremely, extremely non-linear. I mean, you thought Lost jumped around you should think again. The show's BAM-BAM-BAM approach to present and jumbled past situations will be very disorienting for those who aren't used to and won't immediately roll with it. What makes up for it is that there are at least interesting things going on in this madness. Okay, in the flashbacks we are shown the point of views of two different groups. Group 1 includes this show's everyman Sean Walker, his beautiful girlfriend Leila, and her family. Sean and Leila are going on an Island vacation together (where Sean plans to propose to Leila, of course) while Leila's parents watch over her daughter... or her sister (I wasn't really clear on it). I don't think the show is ballsy enough to go Chinatown and be both. While on their vacation, Sean and Leila's calm is hampered by another couple who are shady without being shady. Eventually, Leila disappears and Sean is on the run. Meanwhile, gunmen descend on Leila's parents and daughter/possible sister. Okay, now the more interesting Group 2 involves the President of the United States Elias Martinez, a newly elected, no nonsense, and idealistic man who has recently become aware that his shady lieutenants and successors have detained a massive and mysterious group of people in an Antarctic facility. Now in the present, we are shown Sean and Leila's father on board a plane with Sean, armed and trying to rally help because Leila's father is about to crash the plane into Martinez's press conference. The press conference that Martinez hopes will expose the false imprisonment and shed light on this "mysterious group," with the group's soft spoken leader Sophia Maguire as a representative.

Now I really thought of this as a simple government conspiracy story, like Persons Unknown mixed with a little 24 and Lost. But the very end of the episode more the anything is what will bring people back for another viewing, while also reminding fans of the pivotal plane ride of Lost's fifth season.

The second episode builds on Sean's on the run storyline, culminating in his capture for a murder he didn't commit. Meanwhile, Martinez and his advisors are led to believe that a long missing faction of the "mysterious group" is responsible for all of these events, although apparent group leader Sophia proclaims that the group actually saved them from the plane attack. She won't elaborate more, of course. A task force is set up to find the missing faction, which is led by CIA Agent Lee, who we get wind early on that he is actually a mole for the "mysterious group." We do however get some elaboration on the "mysterious group" in flashbacks. They are an apparant missing link in the human species, having a .1 percent difference to our DNA. They are no doubt above us in many ways. In this light I assume they could be called Homo Sapien Superior, or Mutants of X-Men fame. The only really interesting traits behind them is that they have superior and unparalled technology backing them up and they age much slower than normal people; Sophia, for instance, has gone from 1944 to 2010 and has only gotten a few wrinkles.

This episode ends on just as big a cliffhanger as it shows the shocking conclusion to the plane in peril arc. This insures I will come back, naturally, as I am easily persuaded by shows like this.

CHARACTERS

Though Sean Walker is your standard reluctant, everyman hero, I gravitated towards him because he is acted by Jason Ritter correctly. I felt more for him in the second episode as he desperately pleads his unbelievable case. I want him to get through this. Elias Martinez, played by Blair Underwood, is also likeable. He's like what we all expected Obama to be; the badass diplomat, the shining knight whose gonna fix the system. He's a guy who tries to do the right thing and not compromise, though both could come with risks. And for us guys, Leila is played by Sarah Roemer, who pulls off the role just as well as Ritter as Sean (neither one requires much of anything special, they're just correct). Laura Innes shrouds herself in calm mystery as the mysterious group leader Sophia, trying to protect her people but not make waves with the masses. Sophia is no doubt a principal player. Second to her in the mysterious group is Clifton Collins, Jr. as a renegade member who would prefer to go Magneto on everyone. If this series takes off, I'm at least glad it is vehicle for Collins, Jr., an actor who doesn't get as much praise or as many roles as he should. Zeljko Ivanek, who I think has made a career off of playing corporate douchebags, plays what I believe to be Secretary of Defense with all the smug cynicism and cold calculating nature he brings to just about every role. Tony Todd was there as a general or something for like a second (way to utilize a good actor). All the characters are good so far, we just have to hope that they aren't expendable episodic drifters who die in their second or third appearance.

PROS

The story has potential, but then again so did FlashForward and Persons Unknown. The characters and the situations they are in are all cryptic as hell, which guarentees that the curious ones will stick around to figure why these things are happening. Also the dialogue is pretty good, sharp, intelligent, believeable; again, something those other shows screwed up on. There is a high level of compelling mystery that can capture an audience's intrigue as well as characters you can kinda care about. So that's two things you have to keep an audience, namely me, but both of those things need improvement.

CONS

I've already mentioned the uber-nonlinear story structure. The Event's frantic need to be on the go and not slow down will either increase tension at an over the top rate or completely lose people. And each episode's flashbacks aren't to something specific but mainly just keep jumping around from anywhere to 10 minutes ago to 60 years ago. I mean Lost had flashbacks, but this is a little much. This also means there may not be enough time to fully get to know characters and thus not care as much about them or their predicaments. Speaking of characters, there have already been about three who introduced right off, given a little depth, and killed very soon after. I hate that. Also there is just a high level of confusion. I don't if the "event" the show is titled for has just happened, happened a long time ago, or if it is still coming. And you probably noticed I had little clue of who some of the characters were and what it was they did (I'm currently watching the third episode and I guess Sean is all of a sudden a former computer hacker...ok!). So there's that.

ALL IN ALL

The Event is no "new Lost", but it does have its own brand of mystery and intrigue and can at least keep me interested when I'm watching. Despite its somewhat incoherent story and pacing, The Event is well written, acted, and shot. For now, at least. I will keep watching unless it eventually sinks into the same slump other "new Lost" shows find themselves in sooner or later.

This has been an update from Your Modest Guru. Thanks for reading.

Lost: My theories

Okay, I know. I know I said I was gonna do another one on the anniversary of the show's end. But it was requested, the anniversary of its beginning was only awhile ago, and I'm always up for one. With that here is a new Lost post. This time I will do something that has always been part of the joy of watching the show: theorize. Since so many people could not answer so many questions themselves - even when those questions were clearly answered or you could come up with your own logical explanation if you used your head - I will give you my theories on some of the things that weren't completely spelled out for those less intelligent or easily confused fans... and some that were.

1. The Cabin

This is one that confuses people still, even though I think its simple. In Season 3 we were introduced to what we believed to be Jacob's lair: a small, isolated cabin in the woods. As Locke and Ben went into the cabin, white ash was found to surround it and inside was empty. Once the two started arguing inside over the validity of Jacob's existence, the cabin started shaking, sounds of the Smoke Monster erupted, and a man was briefly seen inside (he also asked Locke for help). After escaping the cabin, Locke and Ben believed it was Jacob.

My theory: it was not Jacob. It was actually his nemesis, The Man in Black. I'm guessing Jacob used the cabin between the 80s and 90s as one of his hideouts (along with the cave on the cove and the Foot Statue). Jacob probably abandoned the cabin when Oceanic 815 crashed, knowing the survivors would be searching through the jungle. With Jacob retreating to the Statue, The Man in Black found an opening inside the cabin and used it as part of his ploy to mislead Locke, Ben, and the rest. Evidence: the man we saw briefly inside both times looked more like MIB than Jacob (and at one point he had Christian Shepherd's corpse in the rocking chair); there were smoke sounds surrounding the cabin when everything went crazy; MIB was of course seen operating out of there for awhile; the ash around the cabin clearly meant Jacob was hiding there originally.

2. The Numbers

No introductions are really needed. Hurley's backstory primarily involved his lottery winning numbers that he believed to be cursed. The numbers were even showing up all over the show before and after that. Eventually the numbers were revealed to be Jacob's six last candidates for a new Protector of the Island, one of whom was Hurley.

My theory: the numbers were a sign. Jacob's sign. They appeared everywhere for a reason. The numbers showed up in the lives of every character, Hurley was just the only one who noticed. them. They were either two things: a) a calling from Jacob that beckoned people to The Island, or b) a mark that set a chain of events that would lead the candidates to The Island, seeing as how bad things usually happened when the numbers were seen, and not just with Hurley. I think it could be both actually. Perhaps Hurley being the only one who knew there was something more behind the numbers was a measure of his candidacy.

3. What was with that talking bird and polar bears

This frustrates me because, like most of the unanswered questions, it is best solved by piecing things together. Yes, a few of the "mysteries" out of the many of mind boggling mysteries of Lost was what were strange animals doing on the Island, including polar bears and a bird believed to have talked.

My theory: I barely registered the so called "talking bird" in either scene it was in. Yes, in a few instances there was a bird thought to have called out the names of characters as it flew by. I think it was the season 1 finale where it was believed to have called out Locke's name, and then in the season 2 finale where it apparently shrieked "Hurley!", even Hurley thought so (because Hurley notices everything of course). I knew what the polar bears were after season 4. I think they were mainly used by the Dharma Initiative as experiments and then eventually messengers to test the power of The Wheel, that teleported people through space and time. If you want a little more elaboration watch the Lost epilogue.

4. Libby

Oh, Libby. What a great character you could have been. Yes after her shocking and unexpected death half way through her first season, and the level of mystery still surrounding her, there was much spectulation about who Libby was before The Island. There was even a long time theory that she was a part of the Dharma Initiative. I had my weird theories but it was probably pretty simple in the end.

My theory: Before season 6 I was getting the feeling that we'd never have closure for Libby, and just randomly theorized that she was Jacob's illegitimate daughter. How's that for major father issues? But Libby probably was only a victim of circumstance. Maybe she was just mentally unstable at one point. Maybe it was because of her husband's death. Maybe she was cured and that inspired her to be a therapist. Maybe she was, like many others killed on Lost, an innocent bystander who got on the wrong plane.

5. The importance of Walt and Aaron

There was much ambiguity around two primary children on the show, Walt Lloyd and Aaron Littleton. Walt had for most of his life been seen as "different" or "special", and many times it was clear he could do things beyond the limits of possibility, i.e. birds falling dead when he's angry, and an overall ability to sort of will things to happen. It was never really touched on but always a big mystery. Then there was Aaron who was an enigma even before birth. A psychic told Claire that she could not let anyone else raise him but her alone and later changed his mind and told her to get on doomed Flight 815 to meet people who would raise him. This left people wondering if the psychic knew what would happen.

My theory: I will get Aaron out of the way first by saying that, even though I think he could be a future candidate along with Ji Yeon, the psychic was probably only lying. He may have known that Claire was giving up the baby and made her hold off on it until he could secure a deal with a couple in America, no doubt for a large check. In one flashback, the psychic told Mr. Eko he was a fake. So, even though I think Jacob had a hand in stalling Claire's adoption process, I ultimately think that evidence shows that whether or not Claire raised Aaron would not have made much difference, except maybe helping her keep her sanity after she was left behind. However, Walt is a bit like Desmond and Hurley, except he has greater potential. Desmond had a unique resistance and almost fluidic nature with the Island's energy which allowed his consciousness to travel through time and in some cases through life itself. Hurley could see and interact with the dead. Walt, in a very miniscule and untrained way, could alter reality. If trained he could do great things, perhaps even be what the Island has needed for so long, instead of worthy but flawed Protectors. In the end, I think out of all of the numerous candidates, Walt is THE candidate.

6. The Man in Black's role throughout

Now that the show is all over we know what Lost's highly deceptive and lethal antagonist's true goal was throughout the series (or at least what he had planned up until he was able to escape The Island), but really how much deception was there. He was doing plenty of shady things as the Smoke Monster before we even knew what he was. For those who were wondering what he had been doing in all of his appearances before he set his long con into overdrive during Season 5, here's what I came up with.

My theory: After his failure at making Richard, Robert Rousseau, and possibly many others his personal assassins, The Man in Black saw potential in a damaged little boy within The Dharma Initiative named Ben Linus. MIB drew him toward The Others where he would be groomed into a ruthless operative, and an eventual recruit as such. He was no doubt planning his last great scheme soon after Oceanic 815 crashed. Perhaps, he saw the passengers as more potential Jacob followers he could slaughter. That's what I think happened in the cockpit during the first episode. He tried to kill the gang of castaways, only succeeding in offing the pilot, and more than likely would have killed Jack until he saw Jack was Candidate 23, thus realizing that the other candidates had arrived too. His next move came when he encountered John Locke, Candidate 4, hunting for boar a few days later. Upon doing a quick scan of who he was, MIB realized Locke was damaged, curious, gullible, and malleable, and knew he would be come in handy. He nearly got Jack killed when posing as his father Christian, whose body he preserved in the now abandoned cabin. I think this was planned so Locke could gain leadership and influence over the castaways and thus be more useful. After failing to capture and recruit Locke and realizing his fate was faltering upon entering the Hatch, MIB turned his sights to another flawed man of faith, Mr. Eko. Posing as Eko's brother, MIB tried to use him to do either two things: a) further drive Locke to not press the button and destroy The Island, Jacob, and the candidates, or b) become another potential recruit/assassin. Both failed because of Desmond's brave interference and Eko's unwillingness to bend to MIB/his brother's will. Finally he turned all of his focus on Locke and Ben. The chain of events in seasons 3 and 4 allowed MIB to convince Ben and Locke to turn The Wheel, taking them off The Island and setting in motion his plan to kill Jacob. We know where it goes from there. As for what he would do when he left The Island, a big part of me thinks he was planning to recruit or kill everyone. Either way, none of this matters now. He's thankfully very dead.

7. Eloise Hawking

Though she was often presented as a former high ranking Other, there was still clearly a lot more to her than just that. She appeared to have a sort of omniscience, especially when dealing with Desmond. We first met Eloise when Desmond mind jumped back to the 90 where he was gonna marry Penny. Here she seemed to have a knowledge of time travel, course correction, what would eventually happen. She was even completely self aware of the flash-sideways environment. All things that were left unexplained. Yeah, that bugs me too. While people were still wondering what was up with the polar bears in the final season, I was wondering what was up with her.

My theory: During the series, Desmond's union with The Island put him on an extraordinary plane of being only a few other characters could share (in different ways of course). While Desmond's extreme ability fragmented his consciousness and soul through time and space and even through life and death, Eloise may have had the same thing, but instead of fragments she had clarity. Meaning she could not glimpse random future so much as she could see definite courses or destinies. And instead of having a hazy, quick meeting with the place between life and afterlife, she could have as much free range knowledge there as she could have while alive. Did this make any sense?

8. The Rules

Okay, The Rules were always a frustrating concept for me. Mainly because they were the most easily changed rules imaginable. Maybe Island leaders construct The Rules much like a game of Senet (the board game Jacob and The Man in Black played as children) where there are no specifiic rules. Here's how I have classified them.

My theory: Okay, in actuality there were about three different sets of Rules on the show: there were Jacob's Rules, The Others' Rules, and The Sideways Rules.
Jacob: his rules are apparently limited to the power any Protector of the Isalnd is granted. The one thing I've noticed more than anything is that a Protector's word may as well be god. Where basically they can bend the rules of fate that bind people. Essentially you can be like "hey you, you can't kill that person" and you can't; "hey you, you can't kill yourself" and you can't; "hey you, don't age" and you get Richard. Once these things are said they are rules and can't be broken by those that they are specifically given to. Also, a Protector can change the rules to choose who can become a Protector that will have as much freedoms as the previous. Very confusing
The Others: Others' society and politics was very confusing in general; I mean you got the neighborly, proper Barracks section, the isolated and ruthless Temple section, and the random cold calculating operatives section. Their rules are most likely ones that began as Jacob's but were very likely manipulated by any of the coldblooded leaders of the society. They are not allowed to kill each other and family is especially off limits during personal quarrels between each other. A big part of Jacob's philosophy was proving that people can be just as good as they can be evil, but every new era of The Others doesn't abide by that. They label their enemies as bad and their allies or assets as good, even if it is the other way around, and most I've seen are highly amoral. The Others' Rules are often changed but the larger ones are still passed down from Jacob and, even though they are very loose, the principal Others still obey and try to appease Jacob. Still very confusing.
Sideways Rules: these were probably the most simple, even if not completely explained. The Sideways Universe, or Afterlife or Purgatory or whatever, is pretty much a construct that allows people to face who they were in life, all of the good and bad, hopes and dreams and cruel realities presented in a literally timeless scenario. Judging how they handle this situation determines whether or not they realize that their life ended and they have to move on. Some within are aware of what is going on and wish to preserve whatever happiness they've found. I think The Rules here basically boil down to free will. If those who are content with this reality, whether or not they know it is false, they can remain oblivious and just run with it, but prove that they can't let go of their past. For those who accept who they were and the lives they led, they can let go and move on to be one with The Heart of the Island, what I call the source of human essence (I'll get to that in a moment). Either way all of these Rules are confusing as hell and are really just there for plot convenience a lot of times.

9. What was The Island

Oh this has been the big question for, like, the entire series. I honestly didn't think there was anything up with The Island itself for a long time, just that there were some crazy things on it. But huge pockets of electromagnetism underneath can get the mind working just a little bit. So essentially this was, along with the Afterlife, explained well enough for me. My problem was that it was explained a bit too late. A part of me thinks that 'Across the Sea' should have been midway through the last season like 'Ab Aeterno' instead of just two episodes before the finale. I don't think the whole explanation for what is so important about the Island had enough time to sink in, but it still worked for me mostly. I mean it was a bit too simple and really meaningful at the same time.

My theory: not really a theory as much as it is me building on what Jacob's Mother said. While Jacob looked at the Island during his time as a prison for his evil twin (wow this sounds really cheesy when reading out loud), Mother explains it is a place that holds a Source of energy that the keeps stability in the whole world. Within this source is what I call life's essence. The Source's light shines in every person, a little slice of heaven it would seem. If close enough, like on The Island, it's energy resonates with some. It can heal, enlighten, influence, and even change people. But when people find it they want more, which leads to either total corruption or destruction. It's kind of like the apple tree in the Garden of Eden; the light can only be given, but if you try to take it you ruin everything. If the Source is interrupted and the light put out the essence is gone from all life and The Island goes down, no doubt followed by everything else. So, to sum it up, The Island holds everything together. Don't screw with it. Keep the light on!

10. What did it all mean

The most important question is what was the true meaning of Lost, the show in all of its aspects. There really can't be a mythology as big as this and not have a spectulated meaning. The truth is there are many and it is ultimately left to the sole viewer to decide.

My theory: I'm not telling you... yet. This post is already way too long and taken up a lot of my worthless time. I'd rather end it now. Don't worry I will get to what I thought it meant in due time, along with a few other Lost articles of course. So in the meantime, if you watched the show, what do you think it meant? Comment or tell me elsewhere, you little fan girl. That's all I got for now though.

This is Your Modest Guru fully illustrating his nerdiness, or Lostness, again. Thanks for reading and Namaste.