Review: tv-show, "The Legend of the Seeker" season 1

Ha, I found this ridiculous review of a bad tv show recently. It was in draft mode, so I published it, pretty much unchanged from when I wrote it in 2014. 

I saw the first few episodes when it first came out, but never continued. I found it on youtube.com recently and decided to watch the first season from beginning to end.

The 2-part first episode is pretty much the story of Star Wars. A wizard (Jedi) named Zed (Obiwan) kidnaps a special baby named Richard (Luke) and hides him away in a far away place with some good people. He lives near-by as a crazy old hermit/wizard for years while the boy grows up.

Kahlan/Princess Leia runs away from the D'harans/Empire and is rescued by Richard/Luke and the wizard and then go off on adventures. It's Richard/Luke's destiny to kill the evil Darkan Rahl/Darth Vader. It wouldn't surprise me if Rahl ends up being Richard's dad, but to find out, I'd have to look ahead. :)

Based on Terry Goodkind's quite appalling "The Wizard's First Rule", which depends on deus ex machina at every step of the story - some new magic, some new skill suddenly appears to save the day. Rahl had no chance I guess. Whatever.

The tv-series is pretty low quality, with lazy writing quite similar to the book. I found there are obvious solutions or hints that are ignored until something hits the characters on the head to warn them. Also, an extraordinary number of episodes ends in a big sword fight, where the invincible seeker comes out ahead (of course). There is also a ridiculous number of lazy bits where someone sneaks past a guard, or "tricks" them with some obvious and ridiculous ruse that no decent soldier would ever fall for. Also, there is little continuity, and past plans are often ignored just to have a battle scene or more wizard's fire. Also, there is a running theme where the seeker puts the entire mission/quest in jeopardy in nearly every episode in order to save someone, do the right thing etc.. etc... Somehow, no one else sees this, including the evil Darth Vader/Darken Rahl, who could use this at any time to beat the seeker. Funny too, Kahlan the confessor and Zed the wizard also seem to forget this quite often for some reason.

On the plus side, the cast is ridiculously attractive, especially Bridget Regan who plays Princess Leia/Kahlan.

Movie: Bad Words (4/5 stars) 2013

I have to say, I'm a Jason Bateman fan. He's consistently funny, can do serious, is likable sometimes, unlikable others and always good, even if the movie isn't. The little kid, Rohan Chand, is such an innocent foil to Bateman's bad guy as well - a superb casting.

In "Bad Words", Bateman plays Guy Trilby, a miserable, genius who notices a loophole in the American spelling bee system that allows him to compete. So, he works his way through the spelling bee championships from local to state to nationals.

The inappropriate behavior with the other competitors (all children) is completely hilarious. The only weakness for me is the ultimate reason why Trilby is in the competition, but that's a minor thing and the entire movie is worth your time.

Movie: Pacific Rim (1/5 stars) (2013)

Oooo... smelly! If you want big, giant, atomic robots fighting huge, dinosaur-ish monsters that spit acid and produce EMPs, you're getting what you want. If you want any kind of acting, directing or story-line, sorry, don't bother.

I love Guillermo del Toro as a director. I've enjoyed Hellboy II: The Golden Army, Pan's Labyrinth, and even pieces of Blade II (that does NOT count as a recommendation!). That being said, he  has a few issues and a few misses. This is one of them.

For such a good director, I find that there are all these looks, from the Martial to the pilot, from the pilot to the the ops guy and so on and so on... Looks - you need a "look" to convey meaning and seriousness, or humour or whatever. So awful!

And, just like so many other movies, there are great special effects. Of course - who has bad special effects these days? No one. I noticed that almost all the scenes with the giant robots happened in the rain, so they could show that, yes, we've come far enough to do believable rain falling off giant, metal robots. WE CAN DO IT FUCKAS!

Ug! Hated this movie. Bad, bad, bad. Of course - if you want giant robots, you've got them!

Movie: Man of Steel (3/5 stars) (2013)

Wasn't it just last year that we saw a bullet bounce off Superman's eye in "Superman Returns"? Really, do we need another one of these? They did it with Spiderman (badly) in "The Amazing Spiderman", which could have used a miss. I digress.

There's lots good about this movie. The main cast, Henry Cavill, is pretty much perfect as Superman. No one has ever been better suited. The special effects are superb, as good as they have to be to completely fool us into seeing and believing the situations. Loved the space ships, the scenes on Krypton, how smart Lois Lane was in finding out who this guy ways and so on and so on...

On the other hand, really, you don't just make a movie because you have a good cast and some special effects? Everyone has good special effects - bad ones almost don't exist any more. So, why do you make this movie? To tweak Superman's powers? To re-cast General Zod (Michael Shannon)? To not have Clark Kent as a reporter? What? Really... there's no need.

Some spoilers, all revealed in some dumb things about the movie:
- the Krypton atmosphere affects Superman's powers. This is a guy who can fly in space, orbits the earth in the movie, all under his own power. I think the guy could probably hold his breath for a few minutes. 
- Very inconsistent display of Kal-El's powers. At one point, he's struggling to fight a couple of guys in battle exoskeletons, and then he's weakened by the Kryptonian terraformer and STILL managed to smash through it like a meteor. No damage to Superman at all.
- Jor-El (played by Russell Crowe) fights Zod a couple of times and takes him out pretty easily. Zod says a couple of times how he's trained his whole life to be the ultimate warrior, genetically selected and trained to be the head of the military. Jor-El is the chief scientist. Yet, somehow, he still kicks Zod's ass. What is that about?

Anyway, fun enough to watch, but I doubt I will again. Good casting and acting throughout, really good special effects. It could used better writing and a bit of consistency and thought in the rules of the world.

Movie: The Guard (4.5/5 stars) (2011)

One of my favourite movies of 2011, about an uppity Irish policeman, Gerry Boyle (Brendan Gleeson), forced to deal with an FBI agent (Don Cheadle) arriving to investigate $500 M (Half a billion. Is that street value?) worth of smuggled drugs.


Gleeson is awesome in this movie - not that he isn't always awesome, but he's given some of the best lines ever and they are delivered with complete seriousness, for example: "I thought only black men were drug dealers. And Mexicans." and "Now I know what you're thinking. You're thinking, these men are armed and dangerous, and you being an FBI agent you're more used to shooting at unarmed women and children..."


The FBI agent could have been anyone, but Don Cheadle does a good job of being the fish out of water in a small, Irish town where people just don't want to speak English to him. 


Hilarious comedy - worth watching. It's a real sleeper.

Movie: The Prince of Egypt (1.5/5 stars) (1998)

The Prince of Egypt is the story of Moses, starting as a child in a basket floating down the Nile (because the Pharaoh was killing Hebrew babies to control the population), to a young prince of Egypt, having a bit of fun, playing practical jokes with his adopted brother Rameses and eventually discovering his history and then being chosen by God to lead his people out of Egypt.

Things I thought were done well: I liked the voices and the animations, as well as the visual choices for some of the miracles and plagues. This is nothing less than a star studded cast,  Val Kilmer  (Moses AND God - not quite sure what the message was with that),  Michelle Pfeiffer  (Tzipporah - Moses' wife),  Sandra Bullock (Miriam),  Ralph Fiennes (Rameses),  Jeff Goldblum  (Aaron) and  Patrick Stewart (Seti) all do good jobs as their relative characters.

A few annoyances - they state at the beginning that they are faithful to the original story, however, leave Aaron out of the scene with the staff-to-snakes when Moses visits Ramases to free the Hebrews. I have no idea why. They also show Moses as regretful of the various plagues - sure, any normal man would be, but there is nothing of that in the original story.

The rest of the awfulness of the movie comes with the story itself. It's even more creepy/evil told as a children's story in cartoon form. It's obvious from the movie that God can pretty much do anything he wants to, but rather than free the slaves earlier, or even prevent the slavery from happening at all (I assume hundreds of years ago), he puts generations of Jews through torture for some reason before choosing Moses to free them. Also, he could free them in lots of ways that doesn't involve plagues like killing first born innocents, or drowning thousands of soldiers under the Red Sea who are just following orders of their king. No, no - none of that reasonable behaviour. Instead, he decides to really do some damage and kill people who haven't done anything wrong at all. It comes across as evil and more than a little petty and vindictive for a being who is essentially omnipotent. It's just a sorry, sorry story of an evil super being who doesn't care about people at all and doesn't mind a little pain and suffering.

Unpleasant movie to sit through and not worth the cool animations and the good voice acting to get there.

Movie: Drive (3/5 stars) (2011)

Ryan Gosling plays an unnamed driver in this 80's throwback thriller. 


I was amazed at how 80's it felt, with pink script for the starting credits and heavy, 80's style music. On top of that, there are lots of long, quiet shots with two people not saying much at all, which feels older.


There was lots good in the movie. I like Gosling and he had good supporting actors, especially Bryan Cranston as Shannon, and the lovely dimpled Carey Mulligan as Irene, the love interest (there is one kiss in the movie, which is quite amazing and on top of that, a brilliant scene). There isn't much range here though and Gosling is mostly stoic, with the odd smirk on his face when something he likes happens. Still - he's believable as the likeable, yet psychopathic and cool-headed stunt driver with plenty of mad skills. The story starts slowly, but by half way, the amount of tension is enormous and satisfying.


I found the soundtrack distracting and rather than background mood setting, it seemed to try and tell the story with the song lyrics for some reason. 


So, a bit of a mixed bag, and 3 out of 5 from me.

Movie: Layer Cake (3.5/5 stars) (2004)

Layer Cake is marginally a gangster movie, even though the gangsters in it don't think of themselves as gangsters - they are businessmen who happen to deal in cocaine etc...

Staring Daniel Craig as an unnamed protagonist (billed as XXXX in the credits) being pulled on all sides by many hostile forces, Layer Cake is a superbly crafted, cleverly written, somewhat sanitized view into the English underworld. Along with Craig is a solid list of supporting actors, all excellent in their roles. George Harris plays Morty, a likable and friendly gangster with a nasty temper who is XXXX's link to the criminal world. Colm Meany plays Gene, a long time toughie who is super-loyal to their drug-lord boss and Michael Gambon, playing Eddie Temple, an even higher-up, scary, gangster who pokes his fingers in to stir things up. Along with them is a long, long list of smaller roles, almost always funny and entertaining.

Music, directing, acting, writing are all finely polished here. There is little to fault the movie on and I found myself entertained the entire way though. I have a thing against drug movies, but even so, it is hard not to like this. The plot is constantly twisting and finely knotted at the end and one gentle tug unravels it all in front of your eyes for a satisfying climax. I am surprised I've never watched it before now and only got it through a friend's recommendation. Well worth your time.

Movie: Bridesmaids (4.5/5 stars) (2011)

Kristen Wiig plays "Annie", a bride's best friend and her life just isn't going the way she wants it to. It opens with a sex scene which is completely crude, embarrassing and ridiculous, but hilarious as well, which sets the scene for the rest of the movie. The humour is very similar to what you see in "The 40 Year Old Virgin", which I found equally funny and worth watching, although be aware of the crude factor, which is high in both movies.

The big indicator that the movie was great was discussing it all the way back from the movie theater in the car and re-living some of the funniest scenes in the movie. I live 20 minutes away from this particular theatre (Lower Hutt btw) as well, so we aren't talking 5 minutes!

Both Rose Byrne and Chris O'Dowd are great in their supporting roles - consistently funny and great on the screen.

Well worth your time to watch - I enjoyed it from start to finish!

Poetry in Motion - SLAM-style poetry evening (5/5 stars)

I got a random email the other day from a poet. Her name is Alina Seigfried, who goes by stage name of Ali Jacs.

She got my name from the New Zealand poetry society web page as a contact for the Cuba Street Garret writing space.

Ali was organizing and promoting Poetry in Motion, a performance poetry night with US guest poets Ken Arkind and Carrie Rudzinski, both slam poets extraordinaire. I didn't even know what slam poetry was until tonight, but I already love it. Look them up on youtube for a taste. No matter how good they seem, in-person is just so much better.

Before the guest poets went on, there were a few kiwi poets as well: Micah Timona Ferris, Ali Jacs (the host and organizer), Duncan Hope and the P-Town Poet's society out of Porirua. They were all funny or moving or cute or deep or a range of other awesomeness.


I ended up talking to almost all the performers in the personal atmosphere. This was one of the best things I've gone out to do all year - it makes me want to read, listen to and write poetry and you can't ask for more than that.

Firstly, let me say that I have great respect for people who can go up in front of a group of complete strangers and pour out their personal experiences and vulnerabilities in one of the scariest possible ways. I realized after tonight exactly why it is SO worth it.

And finally, I've always admired and been envious of oration skills. While all of the poets were good, Ken and Carrie really demonstrated how it's done, with power, eloquence and beauty, they left everyone in awe of their performances. Bravo!

Run, don't walk to any chance to see these guys perform!

Art Exhibit: Jenny Majeske at "The Frame Shop", Wellington CBD

Last weekend I went to a Jenny Majeske art exhibition at “The Frame Shop” on Taranaki Street in the Wellington CBD.

The Kind One

I've seen Jenny's art previously, and have often discussed her “Girl with a cupcake on her shoulder” (the actual title is “Night of the Cupcake”) with friends and colleagues. The concept is so interesting and unusual that everyone is immediately curious about its intended meaning. When I ask Jen what the cupcake means, she answers with a question, “What do you think the cupcake means?” There don't seem to be any wrong answers, and Jen seems more than happy for people to interpret her work in a personal way.

I enjoyed two walks through the exhibition, first by myself and then with the artist. I find myself reacting sharply to each and every piece. Most often, I'm laughing out loud and curious. Less often, I'm simply confused or taken aback. With most exhibitions, I don't have have to ask questions, but these paintings aren't landscapes or portraits, and the meanings and symbols are packed tightly in skilfully constructed realistic abstracts.

What I mean by "realistic abstract" is that most of the time, objects in the paintings are realistic. They represent real things that you clearly recognizefor what they are. However, the pieces of the painting are arranged in abstract ways that you would never find in the world. Probably the most striking piece for me was of a little girl, 5 or 6 years old, laughing and looking out of the painting standing between two wolves growling and snapping at each other. The girl seems oblivious to the animals.

Other times, an objects in the painting are recognizable, but distorted or coloured differently from what you'd expect, placed in an ordinary setting. “Deer Park” shows a beautiful landscape with two deer near the centre of the painting. The deer are candy coloured, one pink and one powder blue and the deer have human heads. One of these deer people is missing the right antler and the other missing the left. The blue and pink could represent male and female (or not) and the incomplete nature of each could mean they need each other (or not).

Deer Park

Words I think best describe the exhibition are “intellectual” and “personal”. It's obviously the work of someone thoughtful, creative and skilled who isn't particularly worried about following a set of artist rules. The end result is well crafted pieces, each with multiple, strong messages and deep personal meaning to the artist. If you find yourself in the Wellington CBD, I highly recommend dropping by to take a look.

Movie: Limitless (3/5 stars) (2011)

Limitless is a soft sci-fi/action/thriller movie starring Bradley Cooper as Eddie Morra, an aspiring writer who is, to be blunt, a complete loser. He happens across an old acquaintance who happens to be a drug dealer dealing in the perfect drug. NZT doesn't get you high, just focuses the mind, clears your thoughts and gives you all the motivation you need to get things done.


I've been following Bradley Cooper since his Alias days, and thought that he was perfect for this role - he looked like a loser and cleaned up into a believable winner with all the answers and the confidence and charisma to win anyone over. Along with Cooper, there were supporting roles by the lovely Abby Cornish playing Eddie's girlfriend and veteran Robert De Niro playing a rich and powerful boss. Both did solid jobs with their roles.

This is a fun movie, and covers one of my own fantasies... what would you do if you were the smartest person on earth ("A 4 digit IQ") and could figure out any problem? It appeals to me for that reason and the does a decent job at tackling that question - super-intelligence and the world being against you. However, it suffers from the lack of a real, challenging opponent for Cooper's character as well as a plot hole you could drive a truck through that I will leave as an exercise for the reader.

I now feel like re-watching Phenomenon with John Travoltra.

Movie: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 (4/5 stars) (2010)

If there was a Harry Potter book that could have used some editing, #7, "The Deathly Hallows" was it. The last thing I wanted to hear was that they were splitting it into two movies. That was such a money grubbing move from JK Rowling and Warner Brothers. Hold on to the cash cow just a few months longer! We can make another $400M!

That gripe aside, I liked the movie. It has its flaws, patchy pacing issues (just like the book's 200 pages of Harry, Hemione and Ron in the forest hiding out and trying to figure things out), some questionable acting and some random departures from the book, however, it's HARRY POTTER!!

While there are pacing problems, 200 pages of the book translates into half an hour in the movie, during which, pretty interesting things happen and I'm entertained. I won't be lining up to see this again, but it was a good time at the movies.

To talk from a neutral position, my wife, who hasn't read the books, didn't mind the last book beingsplit in half - it was exactly like another book, which was fine.

If I were to rate this movie against the others , it was in the middle of the pack somewhere. I would say that it was the most like the book of all the movies and I liked it as much as I liked the book, maybe a little more, unlike "The Goblet of Fire", which was my favourite book and one of the least favourite movies, and "Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban", my least favourite book (why does the rat stay with the Weasleys for TEN YEARS!!!), but one of my favourite movies - different stresses I guess.

Movie: The Road (3/5 stars) (2009)

"The Road" stars Viggo Mortgenson as "man" and Kodi Smit-McPhee as "boy". There are no names at all in the movie. There was a "woman", played by Charlize Theron and lots of other parts like "bearded man", "thief" and "old man" etc...

The movie is a post apocalyptic science fiction movie. I can only assume that it is set in the future, but it may have been set in the past - it's hard to tell. There is only devastation and barren waste everywhere in the movie.

The story is simple. A man and a boy are wandering the wasteland headed south for no reason except that they are looking for the ocean and hopefully something better than what they left behind. They meet some people and see some screwed up crap and you quickly get the idea that the world is not what we are used to. This isn't "The Book of Eli", where there is a quite thick veil of bullshit over the entire movie. This feels REAL.

Despite its simplicity, each scene is thick with detail and has real impact. The psychology of the situation is evident constantly and the concepts of "hunger", "loneliness", "happiness" and "friendly" are violently twisted into new meanings.

The movie does nothing to explain the apocalypse itself, i.e. what happened or why. It isn't part of the focus. We don't know if there was nuclear holocaust, a disease or aliens, we just know that we're here and it's dire.

In many ways brilliant, but at the same time, depressing and and unsatisfying. You go away impressed at the quality of the acting, directing and cinematography, but don't really know the point of it.

Movie: Salt (2/5 stars) (2010)

Get ready for Jasina Bourne, except not as good as Jason.

This is a run-of-the-mill action/spy movie staring Angelina Jolie as Evelyn Salt, a CIA agent with a mysterious past. It was gimmicky action, with attempts at doing what no other movie had done, something that's become cliche in its attempt to avoid cliches. The worst was Salt using a taser to make someone press the gas pedal on a police car - it was just too ridiculous to keep a viewer watching without rolling their eyes.

I really have nothing more to say about this one. It's just not worth your time. I am glad that I saw it on cheap night, otherwise, I would have felt ripped off completely.

Movie: Inception (3.5/5 stars) (2010)

On the way back from my recent holiday in Canada, schedules didn't work and I ended up with 2 days in Los Angeles. I watched Inception in Santa Monica at a crappy little theater called the Santa Monica 7. Pretty much any Wellington theater is better. The seats had almost no incline and we were hoping (against hope apparently) that no tall people would end up sitting in front of us.

Enough about the theater itself, on to the movie.

There is lots that is great about the movie. The concept, people stealing ideas in shared dreams, is immediately interesting to a science fiction fan. I liked the action scenes, the special effects (especially the weightless scene - very cool), and almost all the characters. My favorite scene has to be the kick, kick, kick sequence which I will say no more about.

Leonardo DiCaprio is consistently good. I know he gets labeled as a bad actor, since he is a teen heart throb and ends up in Hollywood blockbusters regularly, but he has starred in a string of good movies that are all worth watching (Shutter Island, Revolutionary Road, Body of Lies, Blood Diamond, The Departed and The Aviator to go back only 6 years). His body of work is solid and I will watch anything he stars in.

Ellen Page , on the other hand, has a reputation of being a great up-and-comer. I love that she's from Halifax, where I lived more than 10 years, but I don't get the big fuss over her. She's good, but I find that she is a little off in most of her movies (there are LOTS) and I can't quite put my finger on it. Still - she's today's superstar and ended up in this movie.

All the other main actors do their job well. The directing is good - it tells the story clearly and simply (despite the many twists and turns and the levels of dreams).

The problem for me was the writing. I've written a lot of first drafts. I know what a first draft feels like and there is lots in this movie that feels like a first draft. It seems that Leonardo DiCaprio's character Cobb is the only person who knows everything about dreams and when something surprising happens, Leo throws out another gotcha that no one else knew about. These are just rough edges that could have been smoother, and it feels like the dream "physics" was just made up on the spot and never revised or made consistent. It's a slap in the face since it happens so often in the middle of the action and is no where near as clean as everything else in the movie.

It could have been The Matrix all over again. It tries to be, but fails. Too bad - I would have loved another Matrix.

Movie: The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (3.5/5) (2009)

If you haven't heard of this movie or the novel, then you've probably been living under a rock for the last two years. It's new to DVD, and we rented it last night.

I wasn't sure what to expect, since I'd never read the novel. I knew there was a female hacker with a dragon tattoo and that's about it. AND - just so you know, it's not a cute, little tattoo of Mushu from Disney's Mulan, it's a honking, huge, evil looking dragon tattoo that covers her whole back.

I was pleasantly surprised. The movie was simple and didn't try to over reach itself. There was no pretension, just a nice, simple mystery movie that was interesting the entire way through. The fact that it was in Swedish didn't hurt it at all, and I really loved comparing the Swedish to the English subtitles and noticing how similar many of the sounds were. There are several sentences that are identical ("Are you ok?") and lots of nearly identical words that added a positive dimension to the movie.

Mikael Blomkvist is hired by a rich businessman named Martin Vanger to solve a 40 year old murder. Vanger's favorite niece Harriet, who he loved like a daughter disappeared in 1966 and he wants to know what happened to her. He isn't really expecting results, but wants someone working on it who won't give up.

Mikael doesn't know it at first, but the title character Lisbeth Salander takes an interest in his case after hacking his computer for another job. Lisbeth is by far the most interesting character and comes from a dark and sordid background. She is 24 years old and still has a guardian assigned by the state for some reason. Eventually, Mikael and Lisbeth track various tenuous leads and get pulled into a mystery bigger than either imagined.

The movie taught me quite a lot about storytelling. Since I've been writing my own novels, I pay close attention to how movies and novels progress their stories. The main thing it taught me is that motivations for your villains is a nice to have, but not 100% necessary. You can just have them just being evil with almost no explanation - the success of the book and movie are proof of this. Another lesson that I've already learned from Taken with Liam Neeson - if you make the villains evil enough, your hero can do whatever they want to them and you will feel absolutely no sympathy.

Movie: Van Diemen's Land (4/5) (2009)

The cinematographer did an absolutely amazing job. The last time that I was THAT amazed at a movie's visuals was Girl with a Pearl Earring (2003) where every frame was like a 17th century painting.

In Van Diemen's Land a group of Irish, English and Scottish criminals engineer an escape from Macquarie Harbour, Tasmania (formerly known as Van Dieman's Land), an end-of-the-road place for men whose punishment is a lifetime of slavery. Their escape goes wrong and they end up running into the forest to escape British soldiers.

The camp fire scenes were amazingly lit - like worn paintings of faces in amber and black. The lighting techniques were repetitive, either a camp fire scene, a long, scenery shot or men walking in the forest, but so, so realistic. I was regularly in awe of the look and feel.

The movie had impact, a realism that is rare in film. The dirt under the fingernails, in the ears, on the skin, teeth and clothing looked right. At no point were you ever pulled from the movie - it surrounds you with the hunger and anxiety of the characters. The brutality is ultra-real and as far from being romanticized as is possible.

The story is simple. A story of escape and survival in the wilds, about desperate measures in harsh circumstances.

The character of Alexander Pearce narrates in Irish Gaelic, and the film makers decide to turn him him into an eloquent poet, a literary genius and philosopher, rather than just a common, murderous thug. It was the right choice to make Pearce narrate in something other than English and make his English rather poor as it heightens the tension and make Pearce even that much more of an outsider.

This is a brilliant but disturbing film that is amazing to watch. I want film makers to watch and learn from this film.

Movie: The Vintner's Luck (2/5 stars) (2009)

How would your life be different if an angel took interest in you and your passions, your desires?

Not that different apparently, except maybe you'd get involved in a gay relationship with said angel.

There were bits of brilliance, but overall, this movie is a lot of failure and very little success.

Things they did well:
- casting, the angel is creepy and androgynous, Sobran is a convincing, passionate wine maker, and many of the supporting roles are well done.
- some of the reveals about the angel were interesting
- ah... nothing else I can think of...

Things they did badly:
- While I'm a fan of Keisha Castle Hughes, I thought she was one of the weaker casts and was out of place the entire time
- The sex scenes were incredibly random. Rather than have a conversation, Sobran would just flip over, climb on top and pump away - not very sexy at all
- I kept expecting the angel's wings to just fall off
- The "sex scene" between Sobran and the angle was just dumb
- there is always the feeling that if the camera panned just 1 cm to the right or left, you would see some stage hand picking his nose. It felt quite shallow and fragile the entire time.

The most telling sign that this movie was dull? I kept wandering off to the kitchen for something to eat or drink without bothering to pause it. I sat through all of "Sunshine" with Ralph Fiennes. Believe me, I have patience.

I feel bad for Elizabeth Knox, the Wellington writer who wrote the original novel. She can't have been happy with this effort.

TV Show: Lost (3/5 stars) (2004)

I have been a fan of lost since the beginning and I saw final episode this week. Lost has been there for so long, you know all the characters and they become like friends you look forward to running into each week. They won't be there any more.

At the same time, there is probably no way for the writers to successfully wrap up such a complex mess of mysteries and layers, backstabbing and lofty, noble enigmatic goals. I can vouch for that - they just didn't succeed. I'm sure there is a writer sitting back saying, "There. All done. All the mysteries explained.", but he would be wrong. They pretty much did not explain anything.

First of all - what the hell was the island? If you can't answer that, you've failed miserably. Does it exist in the real world? Can everyday, ordinary people actually get there? What was the smoke monster? What is the light at the centre of the island? Who was Jacob's mother? Where did she come from?

Too many loose threads for a successful ending. There is a bit of closure, in that you know where everyone is at the end and they are all happy and there's a warm, fuzzy feeling, but seriously, if you think that even a single mystery of the last six seasons was answered, then you are delusional.

Overall - fail. I'm sure the studio made a ton of cash on it though.