Movies: Captain America - The First Avenger

Score: ***1/2 out of *****

Long Story Short: Captain America: The First Avenger is a fun summer blockbuster; yes, it's another comic book movie, but it's a worthy addition, not a cash-in. The main strength of the film lies in its ensemble of heroes, from the very likable Steve (ie: Captain America), to love interest Peggy, to skeptical Col. Philips. Sadly, the villains aren't nearly as interesting, but it all comes together nicely in a throwback adventure with a good sense of humor - and a surprisingly good ending.

Yet another superhero movie! I like the genre quite a bit, but I must admit I had started to grow a little bit weary of them this summer (I've seen two of the others, and skipped the dreadfully-reviewed Green Lantern). However, this film looked pretty entertaining from the trailers, and seemed different enough to be interesting - fortunately, I was correct on both. So, Captain America: The First Avenger - a title which refers to, if you aren't already familiar, a group of superheroes called the Avengers (including Iron Man, Hulk, etc.) who will have their own movie next summer - was directed by Joe Johnston (Jumanji, Jurassic Park III). Let's get to it.

After a mysterious opener in present time, the movie quickly reverts to the central time period - 1940s - where a team of Nazis, led by officer Schmidt, invade a Norwegian town searching for an artifact. Back in the States, we meet a pair of friends: Steve, a short, scrawny guy desperate to enlist, and Sgt. "Bucky", who is already set to be deployed. During one of Steve's failed attempts to enlist he is noticed, however, by Dr. Erskine, who recruits Steve for to try out for a special operations unit. At the training facility, he meets the skeptical (to put it mildly) Col. Philips and the lovely but tough Peggy. Admiring Steve for his strength of character over body, Erskine selects him to be the subject of a radical experiment to transform him into a super soldier. However, an assassin from Schmidt's Nazi division - known as HYDRA - kills Erskine, and ends his own life when Steve finally catches him.

With Dr. Erskine gone, the skeptical Col. Philips puts Steve to work - as an actor in the States selling war bonds to fund the military. When Steve comes to attempt to give moral support to troops in the field, Peggy prods him that he was destined to do more for the war effort. Thus, Steve goes on a daring mission to rescue some POWs - including his friend Bucky - and meets Schmidt along the way. After his spectacular success, Col. Philips changes his plans and the war soon intensifies as Schmidt puts his evil plans into action. (No need for me to go further than that in specifics).

One of the reasons that I give this film a better score than Thor is the cast. There are a number of excellent casting choices, and they really do a nice job. This starts with Steve, played by Chris Evans (a superhero veteran from the Fantastic Four series), who is a classic young man of the era, eager to, in his words, "stop the bullies." He isn't as charismatic as Thor - and isn't supposed to be - but his heart, humility, and sense of humor quickly win you over (particularly pre-transformation). In short he is a perfect Captain for America in WWII. Hayley Atwell plays team member - and Steve's love interest - Peggy Carter. She displays her character's imperfections as effectively as her intriguing yet natural combination of loveliness and toughness. Tommy Lee Jones as Col. Philips is perfect; maybe I just haven't seen him in anything for a while, but his dry humor combined with his commanding presence steals just about every scene he is in. Finally, Hugo Weaving also seems a perfect choice as the brutal and insane Nazi officer Schmidt; but I think the script let him down. Weaving, as shown with Agent Smith in The Matrix, is perfectly capable of incredibly creepy menace, yet he doesn't get the screen time nor the right scenes to properly convey this. A disappointing missed opportunity.

The supporting cast also has some stand outs. Stanley Tucci plays Dr. Erskine, who sadly doesn't last long, with such a warmth that you can practically feel it - a perfect yet brief mentor for the discouraged pre-transformation Steve. Toby Jones (Karl Rove from W.) also does a nice job as Schmidt's assistant, a timid little guy with unexpected humor. In an interesting but unintrusive cross-pollination, Howard Stark (Iron Man's dad) is basically Q for Col. Philips' division, and Dominic Cooper gives it some spice. Steve's friend Bucky is pretty uninteresting, however; he mostly just provides a nice plot device.

Obviously, Captain America is pretty much an adventure movie. Thus, even if it's not the most important thing, the action sequences and special effects need to be pretty good to keep pace with the film's numerous competitors. I'd say this film does alright in those areas, but perhaps nothing to write home about (oops, I guess I'm writing about it in my blog). It doesn't help that the villains are pretty generic - and I was a little disappointed to find that the enemy foot soldiers were not Nazis but Schmidt's own special troops (perhaps there were political reasons). Still, it's pretty fun to watch Steve kick some butt as Captain America. And his abilities are not so over the top as his name might suggest, which is refreshing; he relies on creative use of his neat shield mostly. Sometimes (particularly when Steve pursues Erskine's assassin) the action seems deliberately '40s propaganda-esque, a unique touch. As I've mentioned before, there is some great humor in here, that fits the less ambiguous, good-guy-vs.-bad-guy feel (ie: not Nolan's Batman) of the film. One of the best examples of this is Steve's brief stint working for USO to sell war bonds. Everyone contributes to this humor (well, except Schmidt - another flaw of his character), particularly Steve and Col. Philips.

***

Captain America is far from a flawless film. The last third arguably dips somewhat in quality as the fun character interactions subside. Schmidt and his evil organization are perhaps a little too dull and cliche. However, the film has more than enough strengths to make up for these and create an overall enjoyable summer escape. There aren't necessarily a lot of original concepts here, but most of the pieces fit together nicely. It's a feel-good film that really gets you rooting for Steve, who was once picked on mercilessly, couldn't get a girl to even look at him, and couldn't even fight for his country. But Steve is not self-pitying, and so when he starts reaping the rewards of his hard work, you feel happy for him. As Captain America, he doesn't zap guys from a distance, he beats them up with his natural weapons - hands and feet - or uses his trademark tool, a shield, which is of course defensive in nature. Hence, the old-fashioned feel. So if you don't see it this summer, then I would recommend it as a rental/Netflix in the dark days of winter when some good fun adventure is just what you need. (A final note: I was very pleased by the ending, one I certainly was not expecting given its genre brethren, and gives the film a little more emotional weight and finality than it might otherwise have had).

Movies: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallow - Part 2

Score: ****1/2 out of *****

Long Story Short: At last, the Harry Potter adventure on film comes to a close, and this last entry gives it a grand conclusion. The Deathly Hallows - Part 2 has all the elements of a classic (well, except for maybe the clunky title): exciting, epic action built around the concluding adventures and realization of a rich set of characters in emotionally wrenching scenes. Just about everyone in the superb supporting cast is given their curtain call, too, in this magnificent film that reminds you what a true blockbuster is.

Perhaps one of the most anticipated films of all time, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 2 hit theaters with huge success, breaking the opening weekend box office record. I was among those who were very excited to see this final movie version of the outstandingly popular book series. This installment was directed once again by David Yates, who also directed the last three films. I've now seen it twice, actually, and am glad as my opinion of it has changed quite significantly with the second viewing. It's unlikely that we'll see many of the aspects of the Potter films occur anytime soon, such as watching the young actors portraying Harry, Ron, and Hermione grow up over ten years. So buckle up for the ride and enjoy it.

Those familiar with the books need no plot overview, but for those who aren't, here's a brief glimpse. Harry is back where he left off at the end of Part 1, at the seaside hideaway of the Order of the Phoenix (the group fighting bad guy Lord Voldemort). Here he makes a deal with a former (goblin) employee of the Gringotts wizard bank to break into the highly-secured facility to fetch another of Voldemort's horcruxes (long story short, horcruxes are magical items that need to be destroyed to kill Voldemort). Harry, Ron, and Hermione make their move, and get to the horcrux but face quite a mess trying to escape. After this event, Harry has a shared vision with Voldemort (the two have a magical connection) that lets Harry know that Hogwarts must be the next stop.

With Dumbledore's brother's help, a tavern owner in a nearby town, the trio sneaks into yet another heavily-defended facility - their old school. Unfortunately, word gets out that Harry has returned, making it a race against the clock for Harry to find the horcrux hidden in Hogwarts before the Death Eaters (Voldemort's followers) storm the school. Don't worry, though, it's not quite that simple: there are still two horcruxes left, and the true character of many players, both good and bad, come through in unexpected ways. Battle rages and emotion pours out like never before by the end of the climactic conclusion to Harry's grand adventure.

One of the most astonishing things about seeing the Potter films from 2001 to 2011 is the aging, maturation and evolution of Daniel Radcliffe (Harry), Emma Watson (Hermione), and Rupert Grint (Ron). They have steadily grown more confident in their roles and really helped flesh out their characters - which is the heart of the entire series - quite well. By this last installment, Radcliffe gives a great, restrained performance. I can imagine it would be easy for his ego to balloon and make him exaggerate every line and expression. But he makes it all look very natural, humble, and sometimes pained as his character's experience should reflect. Watson has admirably made Hermione into a strong character who can both give her friends unequivocal support and display great courage in the face of real fear. And Grint has perfected his body language, while making the most of his few lines; he has a great sense of humor, and is Harry's true friend - competitive at times yet completely loyal. The actors have become so intertwined with their characters that it will be difficult to see them as anyone except Harry, Ron and Hermione, but what they have accomplished is quite a triumph.

The secondary cast is, as usual in the Potter films, excellent. Ralph Fiennes gets more screen time than before as Lord Voldemort, and he uses it very well to portray a cruel, slimy, yet in some ways pitiable villain. My only complaint is that he doesn't come off as intimidating as his character perhaps should. Michael Gambon gets just a little time as Dumbledore, but arguably he does his finest work yet as the clever old wizard. Alan Rickman gets to show off in a small segment of the film devoted to his character, and he really shines in his role as one of the series' most complex and interesting characters. Helena Bonham Carter is still perfect as Bellatrix Lestrange, and does a particularly nice job when her character's polar opposite, Hermione, is disguised in her body. Many minor characters get brief send-offs, such as perfectly-cast Robbie Coltrane as Hagrid, John Hurt as wandmaker Ollivander, and Maggie Smith as Professor McGonagall. The only performance I was not a fan of was Matthew Lewis as Neville - but part of this is probably just my slight distaste for his transformation in the source material itself.

Certain that the movie was bound to make obscene profits, Warner Brothers let the filmmakers go for it in the special effects department. However, that's not to say that the whole thing is just one big action movie. But it does mean that there are a number of set pieces and effects that are quite fun. From the robbery at Gringotts to the Battle of Hogwarts, they spared no expense in creating a visually enthralling film. Interestingly, I might add that while the Room of Requirements scene had spectacular fire effects, I thought that it looked kind of odd when they got on brooms; the rest of the film is so well done that the mistake here is noticeable. There is a little bit of humor here, and when used it's effective, but there isn't a lot of room for it. Instead, we are provided with some of the most emotionally poignant scenes in the series - particularly for Potter fans, of course. I give Yates a lot of credit for really focusing on maximizing the impact while not going overboard at all. These included moments of both sadness (especially the Pensieve scene and Harry's "reunion" in the forest), as well as those of triumph or happiness - from Harry's return to Hogwarts, to *SPOILER!!!!!!!!!! (highlight to read)* his leaping from Hagrid's arms when supposedly dead. *END SPOILER*

***

The first time that I saw this film, I thought it was very good - but wasn't overly impressed. I think part of the reason is that I am such a huge fan of the books that I unconsciously compare how I feel particular scenes or characters should be done to the way they are shown on screen. But before sitting down for the second viewing, I tried to put myself in the mindset of the previous films, their style of storytelling, and it worked. Thus, I've given HP-DH Part 2 four and a half stars for the moment - and this may be upgraded to five stars someday, in other words, a classic. But a film has to stand up to multiple viewings over time for that status, so I'll withhold it for now.

The huge popularity of the Harry Potter series has combined with its long development time, from the beginning of the phenomenon in the late '90s to the last film in 2011, to create a special situation. As I mentioned, there are the young actors who spent literally half of their lives portraying the now-legendary young trio. But there are also millions of fans of all ages and backgrounds who came to know those characters and the world they inhabited so well that they became more special than just any ordinary fictional elements. Perhaps that's why I and others have sometimes had mixed feelings about the film adaptations, which are great in many ways (many casting decisions - Snape, Hagrid, McGonagall, etc. - informed my own mental images of the characters as I read the books), yet can't quite reach the magical status that the books achieved. Still, the films captured a certain vision of the series that had more than its share of special moments, and it is worthy of its mission to put the adventures of Harry Potter and his friends on screen.

Movies: Transfomers - Dark of the Moon

Score: **1/2 out of *****

Long Story Short: Transformers fulfills its promise of being the loudest, longest, most CGI-spectacular film of the summer so far. And that’s about it. The film is way too long and while some of the action is indeed exciting, it simply becomes numbing, even boring, by the end. Main character Sam is fun, as are a few new faces, but they simply aren’t enough to turn this behemoth into a good film.

The summer movie season continues to roll along! I freely admit, I realized I was not going to see an Oscar contender when I decided to go see the new Transformers film. However, the trailer just appealed to the “id” part of my psyche that enjoys large explosions and big robots destroying each other. This third entry in the franchise, subtitled Dark of the Moon (nope, “side” isn’t in there), was directed by Michael Bay and stars Shia LaBeouf. Here we go…

The beginning of the film asserts an alternate history in which NASA detects the crash landing of a space craft on the moon – thus causing JFK to declare the space race. Once on the moon, Armstrong and co. are shown investigating the craft during a supposed period of radio silence. Back in the present, the Autobots (good-guy robots) are helping the U.S. to keep peace around the world, and stumble upon some old robot technology. This leads Optimus (Autobot leader) to go to the moon, where he finds a comatose Sentinel (former leader of the Autobots).

Elsewhere, Sam (human protagonist in the first two films) has graduated from college but struggles to find a job. He has a new girlfriend, who supports the two of them with a job assisting a wealthy CEO. Sam finally lands a job, where a kooky co-worker manages to warn him of an alien conspiracy just before he is assassinated. This leads Sam to take up the investigation with the help of former government agent Simmons (present in both previous films). Sam tries to warn the autobots of the conspiracy, but Sentinel is awakened first and betrays his former brothers. He allies with the Decepticons (bad-guy robots) in a daring bid to enslave humans and Earth’s resources in order to rebuild the alien robots’ former homeworld, Cybertron.

As with many of these summer films, nuanced performances are not the focus, and this film is no exception. However, to start I will say that Shia LeBeouf, as the main human character, Sam, continues to be, in my opinion, a fun, sympathetic and engaging lead. His character perhaps throws a few too many brief tantrums, but he acts with an energy that is able to match the heavy CGI that dominates the film. His new girlfriend, Carly (played by model Rosie Huntington-Whiteley) is, shockingly, even worse than the horrid Megan Fox. Why couldn’t they have just hired a real actress? His parents continue to be extremely annoying, though thankfully they have minimal screentime. John Turturro’s wacky, former Area 51-esque agent has worn his welcome by this point, but he is joined this time by Frances McDormand, who does a great job as the head of U.S. intelligence. Sam’s boss, played by John Malkovich, and his co-worker Jerry, played by Ken Jeong (The Hangover) are also both brilliant, hilarious choices, and are the highlights of the film to me. Finally, the obligatory U.S. soldiers (Josh Duhamel, Tyrese Gibson) are as bland and cliché as ever.

Of course, the main thing to Transformers is the action. There are certainly some fun parts here, especially a chase scene on the highway early on; a brief but creative and intense sequence in which Bumblebee (Sam’s first car/speech-impaired Autobot) saves Sam while destroying a Decepticon; and a worm-like Decepticon destroying a skyscraper. But the last third of the movie, in which the Decepticons take over Chicago and the Autobots try to stop them, features a wearying parade of action that numbs you to the objectively-impressive computer effects. Another problem is that this film, like the entries before it, works way too hard to have the military be a key component in the battle, leading to redundant set-ups and “ambushes.” Most of the comedy is OK, with some good, some cheesy aspects; however, the aforementioned McDormand, Malkovich and Jeong and truly hilarious here. It’s too bad they aren’t given a much more significant chunk of this film’s hefty runtime.

***

I just couldn’t resist going to see this film: in part because it’s such a spectacle, and in part in the hope that it would improve on the previous entries. Consider me, overall, disappointed. There are two major problems. First, the film is way, way, way too long, at two and a half hours, due to a little too much exposition in the middle, an overbloated (to say the least) final battle set, and poor pacing. The second is that it follows the exact same formula of the other two films; all this one tries to do is do everything bigger and louder. Obviously, these movies ask the audience to suspend a lot of disbelief, which is fine. But here’s my small, fanboy-ish, rant: the Decepticons are always shown as fast, powerful, and smart at the beginning – but at the end, you have human soldiers picking them apart like they’re in target practice. It kind of ruins, to say the least, any sliver of suspense in the story when the big, bad robots, standing twenty-plus feet tall with the agility of a man and wielding missiles and guns, get taken down by some human commandoes with rifles (not to mention sliced through like a hot knife through butter by Optimus). It’s actually the human characters – at least, LaBeouf, McDormand, Malkovich, and Jeong’s – that give this film its small joys. Skip this, and wait for Harry Potter next week.

TV: Lost

Today's blog post is a new kind that I haven't done before - and probably won't do again. I want to talk about/review the ABC drama "Lost," which I watched in full via Netflix starting last fall and finishing last week (yes, I took my time). I was a senior in high school when the first season aired, and I did see that entire season (except for the last episode, actually). I loved the show, but when I went to college the next year I found I couldn't consistently catch it, so I gave up. One of my housemates in grad school was a huge "Lost" fan, however, and this was during the show's final season. So I decided to go through the whole thing on Netflix the next year, now that the whole thing was done. I instantly fell back in love with the show as I rewatched the first season, and then continued through the other five. Now I'll go through each of the seasons - as generally as I can, so as not to spoil too much for those who haven't seen it - and other random things I liked about the characters, story, etc.

Season 1:

In a way it's not exactly fair, since I'm most familiar with this one, but I think this is the best, or at least my favorite, season. It is by far the most character-driven season in the whole show; each episode focuses to one degree or another on a character (or family - father/son, brother/sister) on both the island, as well as flashbacks to their life prior to the plane crash. One of the things that makes "Lost" so great is that it has very few if any stereotype characters, and any that drift that way typically still have something unique about them. There are characters that are likable and unlikable; some that appeal to parts of the audience and not others. And there's plenty to choose from, as it's a huge cast (and it only gets bigger). Elements of the story that will be played out until the very end are set up in the first season, but are kept in the background enough that at this point, it's clear the characters' main focus is getting off the damn island. Another thing I liked about this season was the attention to aspects of simply surviving on the island, making it realistic but not overbearingly so. If nothing else, I strongly, strongly, strongly recommend you watch this first season: more than likely, you'll be pulled in and keep going. Maybe you won't make it to the end of season six, but I guarantee (trademark "Men's Warehouse") that you will enjoy season one.

Favorite episodes: "Walkabout," "White Rabbit," "Solitary," "Numbers," "Deus Ex Machina" (one of my favorites in the whole series), "Exodus, Part 2"

Season 2:

Over the course of this season, "Lost" begins to transition to more of the island-related storyline, but it maintains consistent flashbacks like in the first season. I like season 2 a lot, but by no particular fault of its own, it doesn't match season 1's outstanding level. The fact is, we basically know who all of the characters are now, both on the island relationships and off the island backstories (in general). We certainly get some more development, with some surprises, too, but it is just impossible to match the richness of season 1's content. I do like the way the show began to accelerate the progress of the plot lines on the island, though still at a pretty gradual pace. We get to meet new crash survivors (who aren't as interesting as the originals; possibly why season 2 isn't quite as good), and one other character who quickly becomes one of the most interesting characters on the entire show. *MINI-SPOILER* I have to say, I like the way they handled the hatch situation and how it fundamentally split Locke and Jack; I was sad to see it go boom at the end of the season, but it probably needed to go. *END SPOILER* I don't think I would change season 2 much at all, but it suffers a little bit of middle chapter-itis - important plot/character development, just not quite as good overall as seasons before and after it.

Favorite episodes: "Adrift," "The Other 48 Days," "Fire + Water" (agonizing, yet excellent), "?," "Live Together, Die Alone"

Season 3:

Now we have pretty much the inverse of season one: where that one focused on characters and their prior lives, season three shifts full gear into the plot on the island (although flashbacks continue, they are much less significant, in my opinion). For some reason, although I saw both seasons back to back this past winter, I remember season three quite a bit more clearly than season two. Season three had more "whoa" moments for me than the other two, but in a good way. Season three delves deeply into the other people living on the island, both "the Others" and the Dharma Initiative, and especially that character introduced in season two, Ben. Although it starts a bit awkwardly, season three really gets going, especially at the end (and that's even taking into account that ALL seasons of "Lost" crank up at the end). I love the balance that the season achieves by finally revealing those two mystery camps, one past (Dharma), one present (Others), while withholding full understanding of motives and objectives. In addition, the new characters in season three (I'll include the development of Ben's character here) are quite a bit more interesting than the ones in season two. These first three seasons form a sort of self-contained mini-arc, which I think is really neat. They all feature character flashbacks, with more emphasis on character in the first and more on story in the third. The ending of season three is a mind-blower, and the next season does not disappoint in flipping the whole series upside down.

Favorite episodes: "I Do," "Tricia Tanaka Is Dead," "The Man From Tallahassee," "Left Behind," "The Man Behind The Curtain," "Through The Looking Glass Parts 1/2"

Season 4:

In so many ways, season four is a bewildering collection of episodes, though also the shortest one. Even having seen it so recently, I have a difficult time remembering exactly what happens when; events start moving along faster and faster, and we start to get chronological complexity. Also, as started in the final episode of season three, we now have flashforwards of certain characters in their lives after getting off the island. (I know, that's a rather large spoiler, but I figure it can't be that unexpected.) Now I will start including some more detailed *SPOILERS* so be warned. I did find the freighter stuff to be pretty cool, in addition to the new characters; but I felt like there was no longer a stable foundation on which events were being played out, and in moments where I expected a lot of urgency, or at least felt the stakes were pretty high, the show seemed to confuse the tone. It's still an entertaining season, but probably needs to be seen more than once - I should probably see it again, too. I will say in season four's defense, it's cliffhanger is as exciting as all the others in "Lost."

Favorite episodes: "The Economist," "The Constant" (even for "Lost," this is an unusual - but excellent - episode), "Something Nice Back Home"

Season Five:

This season continues the separation of characters in time and place, but I feel that the show gets its rhythm back a little bit more. "Lost," of course, is a continuing narrative, but each season has its own "feel," and a certain point(s) of emphasis; season five, however, kind of feels like half of season four and half of season six. Really, then, it's remarkable that it has any stability at all. I personally found it more satisfying than season four, anyway. *SPOILER ALERT* It may require even more suspension of disbelief than prior seasons, but I thought it was pretty cool when Sawyer, Juliet and Miles finally settled in 1977 with the Dharma Initiative; it surprised me, but helped explain some more mysteries (plus, the time flashing thing was really getting annoying). *END SPOILER* The biggest downside of season five, to me, is the acceleration of character change begun in season four. With events happening more quickly in these two seasons, I feel like some of the characters started doing things they wouldn't normally do or say; and character-driven points generally became a bit more vanilla. All things told, season five had an enormous challenge, as a clean up of season four's chaos and a set up of season six's epic conclusion. A bit like season two, in that way.

Favorite episodes: "Jughead," "The Life And Death Of Jeremy Bentham," "He's Our You," "The Variable"

Season 6:

Ah, it's so nice to "only" have to follow two timelines again! Thanks to Jack "resetting" things at the end of season five, season six enjoys a little more stability, although the "simple" days of seasons one, two, and three are long gone. The timeline that acts as the sort of "flashback" for season six is well done, especially in the first few episodes. After that, one could argue that there are perhaps a few too many "coincidences," but I think the final episode clears that issue up. Speaking of stability, I think that the show does its characters justice in returning them to season one-three form, mostly. It's a little sad that certain characters don't get much/any time in the last season, but I'm also glad that things weren't twisted unnecessarily to include them. As for the other timeline on the island, the *SPOILER ALERT* Others, Dharma Initiative, Ben vs. Widmore, etc. storylines are pretty much thrown out the window, or at least suppressed significantly, in favor of the more mythic (though perhaps de-personalized) Jacob-MIB plot *END SPOILER* While I think this left a number of loose ends hanging (or maybe not; I'll have to check online fansites ;)), it was probably the wisest choice in keeping things (relatively) simple and continuing the "Lost" tradition of having a particular theme for each season. While not perfect, season six is certainly a worthy conclusion of the extraordinary web of characters and stories that make up "Lost."

Favorite episodes: "The Substitute," "Dr. Linus," "Across The Sea," "The End"

So, to rank the episodes, I would certainly say the first is my favorite. The third season is next, thanks to the intriguing new story lines (and info about The Others) and new characters. Season six would come in at third, since it resolves quite a few of the character arcs/story lines that developed (even if it wasn't quite as consistent as the early seasons). Seasons two and five would tie, for season two's overall consistency (but lack of anything really super) and for season five's interesting evolution (even if it was a little messy). Finally there's season four, which isn't bad, but it's just a little chaotic and off balance for my taste; at least it's the shortest one.

***

A few more thoughts...

Characters:

My favorites are Jack (impressive main character who was flawed enough to temper his heroism), John Locke (seemed like such a good guy, and was central in the show's most touching episodes... a shame that essentially his character ends in season 5), Sayid (just a cool dude, other than his habit of torturing and his sheer insanity for falling in love with Shannon), Ben* (I don't *like* Ben, but the actor playing him did a spectacular job, and he was always interesting to watch), Vincent (last episode: 'nuff said... OK, I admit, tears were shed)

Good characters: Kate (nice, stable presence throughout, and I liked the evolution from fleeing to protective), Juliet (charming character, although she was best in relations to other characters - Ben, Jack, Sawyer, etc.), Daniel (he wore his anguish and conflict on his face, but also came up with some of the biggest surprises), Sawyer (with a caveat: I refer mainly to season one and two Sawyer; I was disappointed by his "heroic" streak in later seasons), Desmond (sometimes a little over the top, his "ability" led to some neat ideas and he was easy to sympathize with), Frank (good comic relief, and didn't draw attention away from the main characters), Charlie (fantastic acting job by the former hobbit, gave us both the dark and light in humanity), Hurley (mostly referring to the ingenious backstory of winning the lottery and consequences), Miles (more comic relief, although he had spots of a little more depth), Christian (kind of reminded me of House... small parts, but enjoyable)

Least favorites: Michael (he wasn't really too bad, but his protective father thing got a bit irritating), Claire (good acting, but something about the way she pouted and screamed was like fingers on a chalkboard for me), Shannon (does she need an explanation? But she was needed for character variety, I suppose)... wow, I guess that's not too many (others I didn't like are the ones you're not supposed to like, such as Martin Keamy)

Series finale: while I haven't read any internet debates about it, I know that the finale has divided fans of the series. Well, I'll say here that I liked it. It gave all (I think) the major characters a little closure without going overboard. You could make a good argument that the execution of the lead up to the end was flawed, but the last ten minutes or so were perfect to me, and especially the very last few scenes. The biggest, most important issues were resolved. Do I still have questions. Definitely, but that's what the internet is for (and rewatching episodes).

Whew, that was a long blog post! To conclude, feel free to let me know what you think, "Lost" fans; for those who haven't seen it yet, go watch it!