Gangster Squad (2013)

Starring: Josh Brolin, Ryan Gosling, Sean Penn, Nick Nolte, Emma Stone, Anthony Mackie, Giovanni Ribisi, Michael Peña, Robert Patrick

Director: Ruben Fleischer

Genre: Action, Crime, Drama

Rating: C+

I'm going to predicate this by saying that while I'm not exactly giving this a good review, I did enjoy it.  Gangster Squad was definitely over hyped and possibly even wrongly promoted, and as such going into it I was expecting one type of movie and got something a bit different.  This is a movie created by the guy who did Zombieland, and as such it's a movie like Zombieland kind of trying to be a movie like Godfather or something similar.  As such, it kind of ends up in between the two, to the detriment of the film, although throughout it it still manages to be entertaining and fun.

Gangster Squad is the kind of true, but not really, story of Mickey Cohen (Penn) and the police officers who formed a squad, the Gangster Squad, to stop him.  The head of this squad is Sergeant John O'Mara (Brolin), a decorated war hero who doesn't fit into the L.A. police scene simply because he won't take bribes and wants to persecute Cohen and his thugs.  O'Mara is joined by detective Coleman Harris (Mackie), wire-tapper Conway Keeler (Ribisi), gunslinger Max Kennard (Patrick), and his partner Navidad Ramirez (Peña).  His friend, Jerry Wooters (Gosling), who has rejected an offer to join the squad, meanwhile is carrying on an affair with Cohen's lover, Grace Faraday (Stone).

Okay, so let's see.  The action was fun, I enjoyed it.  With the exception of the Chinatown incident it all really flowed well and was, while not exactly believable, definitely entertaining.  There were a few moments that were a bit hockey, and a few add ins that made me feel like the film was trying to be the 1960s Batman - more than once I almost expected a "POW" to be displayed across the screen - but for the most part it was fun.  The humour was good too and really on key.  It wasn't an overly funny movie, but there were definitely a number of points when someone would say something that made me smile or chuckle a little.

I really liked the relationship between O'Mara and his wife, played by Mireille Enos, and really wanted more of it.  From the get go I felt the love and chemistry between the two of them and I worried about what was going to happen to each of them, and between each of them, more than any other character.  Actually, with all honesty, the only other characters that I really cared about here were the ones played by Ryan Gosling and Emma Stone - although more because I like the actors themselves than because of any development of their relationship.  I do think that Gosling's Jerry was developed, and I really enjoyed the character, but Stone's Grace was less developed, and their relationship... somehow, despite the fact that I already know the two as a couple from Crazy, Stupid, Love and know that they can have amazing chemistry, the two don't really have chemistry here.  It's lacking, which sucks.  I want to see more from the two of them as a couple in this film so that I could really love them as a couple.  And now I just want to go watch Crazy, Stupid, Love again.  I will stick this out there, though, if you're filming a movie with Ryan Gosling and Sean Penn in it one of them should appear shirtless and the other should not.  I'm sorry, Gangster Squad, but you made the wrong decision there.

Red Dawn (1984)

Starring: Patrick Swayze, Charlie Sheen, C. Thomas Howell, Lea Thompson, Ben Johnson, Harry Dean Stanton, Ron O'Neal, William Smith, Powers Boothe

Director: John Milius

Genre: Action, Adventure, Drama, War

Rating: C

This is not a good movie.  I'm just going to stick that out there: Red Dawn is not good.  At best it's a very conservative, rather violent movie about a situation that is really hard to buy into.  When the premise of your movie is that the United States is caught unaware by a Soviet invasion and the only people who fight back (at least for a good chunk of it) are a group of teenagers in Colorado, I kind of have a hard time buying into it.

So, yeah.  At some point in the 1980s the USA becomes increasingly isolated when several European nations, all of them except for the UK, withdraw from NATO, at a time when the Warsaw Pact is being aggressively expanded.  In addition to this, there's a wheat harvest failure in the Ukraine and a communist coup in Mexico.  In order to cope, the Soviets and Cubans invade the United States.  Specifically, they invade the small town of Calumet, Colorado and quickly completely take over the town - and many other parts of the USA.  Enter our heroes, a small group of teenagers lead by Jed and Matt Eckert (Swayze and Sheen), who manage to escape the occupation and begin to form a resistance.

Okay, so 1. I do not buy that a group of teenagers who have no military experience and really are just kids who grew up hunting would be able to effectively fight the KGB.  2. I do not buy that the Soviets would be able to invade Colorado without being noticed well before getting to Colorado.  3. NATO consists of more than just the USA and European countries.  4. By the time of the movie, the Cold War was kind of dying down and it was beginning to be pretty clear that the Soviets? Weren't going to win it.

Actually, let's go back to number 2 here.  There are a few ways that the Soviets/Communists could have invaded the USA based on the premise of this movie.  They could have come up through Mexico, in which case they would have hit California, Arizona, Texas, etc, first.  They could have come via the Pacific, in which case they would have hit Alaska, Canada, and Washington state first.  They could have come up through Cuba, in which they would have probably hit Florida first. Finally, they could have flown over the Arctic Sea, in which case thy would have hit Canada first.  There is no way that they randomly hit fucking Colorado first - which thus brings to question just how the hell this was a surprise attack.  Dear movie makers: please consider geography.

This overall problem comes into play with issue number 3 here.  Canada is a part of NATO. Canada has always been a part of NATO.  In the premise of this movie, Canada is still a part of NATO.  In all likelyhood, Canada also had to be invaded in order to get to the USA here.  Thus, two nations would have been invaded.  Furthermore, the whole "the UK is still a part of NATO" thing comes into play.  Even without NATO, Canada has a very delicate relationship with the UK and it's a bit hard to buy that the UK does nothing to come to the aid of two allies, both which they're entered into military alliances with and one which is a part of the Commonwealth.  Just saying.

Then there's the whole issue of 1.  I'm not even sure I want to go there.  Yes, Americans are known for their gun loving ways - yes, it's somewhat of a stereotype.  Yes, Guerrilla warfare can completely screw over traditional armies, and in a lot of ways that's what the Communists are here.  No, a handful of teenagers are not going to successfully fight the KGB for long, nor are they going to be the only resistance.  That's just ridiculous, sorry.

The Bang Bang Club (2010)

Starring: Taylor Kitsch, Ryan Phillippe, Frank Rautenbach, Neels Van Jaarsveld, Patrick Lyster, Russell Savadier, Malin Åkerman

Director: Steven Silver

Genre: Drama

Rating: C+

The Bang Bang Club has two things to really support it: an interesting (and based on truth) story, and a good cast.  These tend to be the makings of great films, which is why it's  so disappointing that this is not really an all together good movie.

Bang Bang Club follows Kevin Carter (Kitsch), Ken Oosterbroek (Rautenbach), João Silva (Van Jaarsveld), and newcomer Greg Marinovich (Phillippe), a group of photographers who together form the Bang Bang Club.  The group is known for the extremes that they have gone to in order to get photos representing the lives - and deaths - of people living in Apartheid South Africa.  Joining them is their editor, Robin Comley (Åkerman).

So, I do have to say that while the acting is good and the story interesting, there's something lost in Bang Bang Club, and I'm really not sure just what it is.  Somehow, the way the story is told removes the actual excitement and the fact that the timing of it is unclear for a lot of the film makes the historical significance of the events a bit unclear.  The passage of time is a bit wonky; it's suggested that a lot of time passes, but I'm not really sure how much, or how quickly, or really if any time did in fact pass.  The acting is good and the idea of it is good, but the story itself is in need of development.

Another thing that I had a problem with was the casting itself.  While I don't think that the acting was bad, it really does annoy me when people are hired to fake an accent.  There are some actors who are great at it - Meryl Streep - and others who are not.  The accents here were probably about midranged, but it still bothers me.  If you're going to do a film about a group of South Africans, hire a group of South Africans.  Not Ryan Phillippe.

Sherlock (Seasons 1 and 2)

Starring: Benedict Cumberbatch, Martin Freeman

Creator: Steven Moffat, Mark Gatiss

Genre: Crime, Drama

Rating: A+

Doctor John Watson (Freeman) is an ex-army doctor who was injured in Afghanistan.  Through a mutual friend he meets  the eccentric Sherlock Holmes (Cumberbatch), whose home at 221B Baker Street he moves into.  Holmes is a much disliked freelance investigator for the police - many of whom see him as a psychopath who will one day snap.  This view is actually really easy to see, but over the course of the first season Sherlock and Watson really begin to develop a friendship, of sorts, as Watson begins to help Sherlock with his cases - or at least go along with them.

Possibly my favourite part about the show, however, is the fact that Sherlock very clearly sets out to be more than simply a buddy cop type show or just another procedural.  Each of the three episodes in the first season take elements of inspiration from the original stories by Arthur Conan Doyle, although only the plot of the first episode, "A Study in Pink" is an adaptation of a Conan Doyle story, in this case A Study in Scarlet - this is different in the second season, when all three episodes are based on the original Sherlock Holmes novels, in order A Scandal in Bohemia, The Hound of the Baskervilles, and The Final Problem.  I really like that they've done this; there's no dicking around with elements from the novels that people know and love, there's no hinting at them, there's no allusions.  Well, there are allusions but not in a way that leaves you hanging and wanting more.

The thing that really makes this show absolutely amazing, however, is the cast.  The supporting characters are great - from the cops like Sally Donovan (Vinette Robinson) who think that Sherlock is psychotic to Sherlock's brother Mycroft (Gatiss), to Mrs. Hudson (Una Stubbs) who is just pure awesome - but the two leads are even better.  I'm really not sure which I like more, the cold, Aspergerish Sherlock or his much more down to Earth and reasonable friend, Watson.  The dynamic between the two of them is superb and the fact that you really see the influence that Watson has on Sherlock - and that Sherlock has on Watson - is awesome.  I think the idea of a procedural where the main character is someone who doesn't fit into conventional society is my favourite form of the procedural, but when taken with Sherlock it becomes even better.  You can see Sherlock just as easily being the bad guy as he is the good guy, and it's only through his relationship with people like Watson and Mrs. Hudson that keeps him from going over that edge.  In a way, he's kind of like Sheldon Cooper meets Temperance Booth with a British accent and amazing cheek bones, but neither of them really has the balance that Watson provides.  It's great.  I can't wait for season three, even if it isn't coming out until 2014.

Les Misérables (2012)

Starring: Hugh Jackman, Russell Crowe, Anne Hathaway, Amanda Seyfried, Eddie Redmayne, Helena Bonham Carter, Sacha Baron Cohen

Director: Tom Hooper

Genre: Musical, Drama, Romance

Rating: A-

Les Misérables follows the life of Jean Valjean (Jackman), a French convict who in 1815 has been released from prison on a parole - he has served a nineteen-year sentence for stealing a loaf of bread and is deemed a violent man.  Initially, Valjean does reoffend, but after an encounter with the Bishop of Digne (Colm Wilkinson) he takes it upon himself to start again and, breaking his parole he abandons his identity as Jean Valjean and starts new.  Prison guard, Javert (Crowe) finds out about Valjean's broken parole and vows to hunt the man down.  Eight years later, Valjean is a factory owner and the mayor of Montreuil-sur-Mer.  Working for him is the lovely Fantine (Hathaway), who is discovered to be sending money to her illegitimate daughter Cosette (initially Isabelle Allen, but later Seyfried), who lives with the Thénardiers (Baron Cohen and Bonham Carter).  Despite being hunted by Javert, Valjean takes it on himself to help Fatine and her daughter.

There are a few problems with Les Mis.  One is that it both moves too quickly and too slowly - it's a long movie and at times feels it, but things still move forward really fast.  There was nothing that I felt could have been taken out, everything had a point, while there were things that I could have seen being added, although still, long movie.  The second problem is that the singing isn't necessarily the best.  The film is essentially sung-through with almost no straight dialogue, but the actors are not exactly known for their singing.  Adding to this is the fact that the singing is done live, instead of in a studio, which leads to mixed results.  In the case of some of the actors - Helena Bonham Carter, Sacha Baron Cohen, etc - this has a neutral result, neither adding nor taking away from the actual play.  In the case of Russell Crowe, it kind of takes away from things as his voice isn't really suited for this kind of performance.  I know that Russell Crowe is a singer as well as an actor, but I don't think he's a stage performer and that's what's kind of required in this role.  It's sad because he totally fit the role of Javert, but his voice didn't.  I had similar issue with Hugh Jackman - no problem with his actual singing voice and thought that his physical acting was superb, but I don't think his singing really sold the emotion that he was trying to convey.

This critique, however, is in strong contrast to the absolutely amazing performances of Anne Hathaway and Samantha Barks.  Barks plays Éponine and she just absolutely amazed me in her performance - although she does have an advantage to some of the other actors in that while she is somewhat unknown in film, she's a stage actress and has played Éponine before.  Her performance of "On My Own" absolutely amazed me.  Anne Hathaway doesn't have such a background (although her mother did play the same role in the first U.S. Tour of Les Mis), and yet blew me away with her performance.  I wasn't too sure about it at first, but the more time she spent on screen the more I loved her, and the weakness and raw emotion that she displayed wowed me.  While I loved Barks' "On My Own" Hathaway's "I Dreamed a Dream" brought tears to my eyes.  It was superb.

The other thing that I really loved about this film was the sheer transformation of some of the actors.  In the opening shot, I didn't recognize Hugh Jackman at all.  While he does clean up, the man that he in those first scenes haunts the man that he is later on.  Helena Bonham Carter and Sacha Baron Cohen were constantly changing to adapt to their surroundings, but in a comedic way (that was really needed in this film) that ensured you always knew who they were.  They brought their own personalities to the roles in a way that just perfectly fit.  Once again, however, top props has to go to Anne Hathaway, who just seemed to completely transform here.  She starts the film as this beautiful, rather out-of-place woman, and descends into this mess of a woman with this horrible hair (it looks better on Hathaway in real life, but in the film it's bad), blotchy face, and bloody teeth.  It's probably Hathaway's biggest transformation to date and just.. yeah.  I honestly believe that she deserves to win every award she is nominated for because of this role.

The Nativity Story (2006)

Starring: Keisha Castle-Hughes, Oscar Isaac, Shaun Toub, Ciarán Hinds, Shohreh Aghdashloo, Stanley Townsend

Director: Catherine Hardwicke

Genre: Drama, Family, Religious

Rating: C+

Despite the fact that I've never really been religious, I've always enjoyed religious movies.  I might not believe that the story actually happened, but I've never found that it's stopped me from enjoying the story itself - much like how I enjoy Harry Potter without believing that Hogwarts exists.

The Nativity Story tells the story of Mary (Castle-Hughes), a young girl who has been told by God that she will become pregnant with His child, who will be named Jesus.  Mary is betrothed to Joseph (Isaac), and through the course of the story the two must struggle with what Mary's pregnancy means for each of them and the world around them.  Also dealing with such a struggle is King Herod (Hinds), who has learned of a prophecy predicting that a man will emerge as King of the Jews - a title which Herod thinks is rightfully his.  Herod is willing to go to great lengths in order to ensure that the prophecy is not fulfilled, and these lengths in turn influence the struggles of Mary and Joseph, the parents (in a manner) of the prophesied man.

This is not an original take on the story, and as such I think it really suffers.  The story that it's telling is one that we've heard many, many times before and thus this movie can be a bit dull.  The acting isn't stellar either, asides from Keisha Castle-Hughes and Oscar Isaac everyone's performance is a bit forgettable.  There's nothing really amazing about this movie - which in itself is sad, given as it's about Jesus.

Where Nativity does do well is in the depiction of the relationship between Joseph and Mary.  I think my favourite part about this entire film was Joseph and seeing him coming to terms with what his life has become.  At one point, Joseph says to Mary "I wonder if I will even be able to teach him anything," and in a single sentence surmises much of the struggle that he's been going through throughout this movie - the actual him having to come to terms with the fact that his wife is pregnant with the child of someone else is dealt with rather quickly.  I love this sentence and I really loved how you can see Joseph's struggle throughout, and in a way relate to it a lot more than Mary's struggle.  As weird as it sounds, the hero of this piece for me was Joseph, not Mary or her unborn child.

Love Actually (2003)

Starring: Hugh Grant, Liam Neeson, Colin Firth, Laura Linney, Emma Thompson, Alan Rickman, Keira Knightley, Martine McCutcheon, Bill Nighy, Rowan Atkinson, Lúcia Moniz, Thomas Sangster, Gregor Fisher, Andrew Lincoln, Kris Marshall, Heike Makatsch, Martin Freeman, Joanna Page

Director: Richard Curtis

Genre: Comedy, Drama, Romance

Rating: A

"Let's go get the shit kicked out of us by love"

Love is all around.  That is, very literally, the message of the 2003 film Love Actually.  The thing is, however, that this film isn't just about romantic love, although that does feature rather heavily, as it looks at the love between lovers, friends, and family.  There's even the loss of love and unrequited love and the whole shebang.  Love is all around.

The film follows a collection of people, all intricately connected to one another.  David (Grant) is the newly elected Prime Minister of Great Britain, and develops an attraction for a new junior member of his staff, Natalie (McCutcheon).  David's sister, Karen (Thompson), is having problems in her marriage - although she's not entirely aware of it yet - as her husband, Harry (Rickman) is enticed by his flirtatious new secretary Mia (Makatsch).  Also working for Harry is Sarah (Linney) and Karl (Rodrigo Santoro).  Sarah is in love with Karl and has been since she started working at the company, although neither she nor Karl have made any moves yet.  Karen's friend Daniel (Neeson) is newly widowed and unsure of how to help his stepson Sam (Sangster), who has fallen in love with classmate Joanna (Olivia Olson).  Sarah's friend Jamie (Firth) has discovered that his girlfriend is sleeping with his brother and in order to deal he retires to his French cottage, where he meets Aurélia (Moniz), who only speaks Portuguese.  Jamie and Sarah both attended the wedding of Juliet (Knightley) and Peter (Chiwetel Ejiofor).  Juliet has long thought that Peter's best friend Mark (Lincoln) hated her, when in actuality he's been in love with her this whole time.  Also at the wedding is Colin (Marshall), a British man who has decided to go to America where his accent will instantly make him a hit with the ladies.  His friend Tony (Abdul Salis) doesn't believe this is the best idea.  Tony is the production assistant of a film where John (Freeman) and Judy (Page) are body doubles for a sex scene.  Overseeing it all is rock and roll legend Billy Mack (Nighy)'s attempt to have a #1 Christmas hit, a variation of The Troggs' "Love is all Around".  Billy Mack's one friend is his longtime manager Joe (Fisher).  Oh, also, there's minor character Rufus (Atkinson) who provides a couple antics and was initially supposed to be a Christmas angel before being dropped as such - I still like to think of him as one.

This is the kind of film that movies like New Years Eve, Valentine's Day, and What to Expect When You're Expecting all try to be.  Centred around one common theme it tells the story of a bunch of different people who are all connected but at the same time unrelated.  There's the perfect amount of characters here, with the story focusing heavily on some and not so heavily on others.  There are no real twists, you can see the endings that end up happening coming for miles, but it's not really a movie that needs twists.  Each of the storylines is absolutely awesome and each of the characters is great.  Even John and Judy, who get the briefest of scenes, have the feel of being these thoroughly developed characters.  You know that they exist outside of the sex acts that they're miming.

The other thing that I really like about the film is that while you can see the endings coming, some of them aren't necessarily the ones that you want to see happen.  I always feel a but guilty as I watch the Mark/Juliet/Peter triangle, because no matter how much I know Juliet and Peter are in love and even though I think Peter's a great guy, I want Juliet to leave him and hook up with Mark.  At the same time, I want Harry to smarten up and be with his wife.  I don't care so much about some plots - like the Colin one, which I think was just for laughs, or the Sam one, which I think is a bit cliched - but Love Actually is more than just the sum of its parts.  It's just sheer awesomeness.

In addition to being a story about love, this is also a comedy, to which it does so rather nicely.  The amount of comedy is different in each plot, and to an extent so is the style, but somehow it works here.  Even with their differences, they all seem to work well together, they mesh like a really good collage - like a puzzle depicting a picture of Mickey made out of a bunch of smaller images of scenes from Disney movies.  The one-liners keep on coming in this one, as do the little scenes that are just hilarious.  If you haven't seen this movie yet, I recommend you at least look up the image of Hugh Grant dancing to "Jump (For My Love" by The pointer Sisters.

Sons of Anarchy (Season 3)

Starring: Charlie Hunnam, Katey Sagal, Mark Boone Junior, Kim Coates, Tommy Flanagan, Maggie Siff, Ron Perlman, Ryan Hurst, William Lucking, Theo Rossi, Dayton Callie
Creator: Kurt Sutter 

Genre: Crime, Drama, Action, Comedy
Rating: A-

Have I mentioned yet how much I love the music in Sons of Anarchy?  I don’t think that I have.  A lot of the series’ music is stuff from lesser known, newer artists with a traditional rock and roll tone to it, although a few artists who are more established are also briefly used.  There’s also a lot from series composer Bob Thiele’s band The Forest Rangers, often featuring a vocal accompaniment by another artist.  There are also frequent covers, done in a way that feels different but at the same time totally fits with the tone of the show.  If you haven’t already, you should definitely check out the soundtracks.

I think the third season of Sons of Anarchy managed to both improve on the previous seasons and lose some of the charm.  The plot continues to grow in direction and become less overly complicated, but I think some of the elements of it were a bit rushed and I found at some points I really needed to suspend my disbelief.  I really liked the note that the season ended on and the implications that it had for the next season, but some of the journey was a bit bumpy.

Season three picks up a bit after where season two left off: Gemma (Sagal) has fled from Charming and is in hiding with Tig (Coates) and SOA members from another charter guarding her while the other Sons are searching for Cameron (Jamie McShane) and Abel.  The search is not going well, however, as Cameron flees to Belfast, Northern Ireland, where he seeks help from his cousins Maureen Ashby (Paula Malcomson) and Father Kellan Ashby (James Cosmo), the latter whom acts as an intermediary between Jimmy O’Phelan (Titus Welliver) and the Real IRA.  Rather than simply hand Abel over to the Sons, Father Ashby and the IRA begin to weave their own intricate plot in which the Sons of Anarchy are just pawns.  Meanwhile in town all the violence is beginning to catch up to the Sons and following a drive-by shooting at Half-Sack’s wake the townsfolk begin to turn against the club and those associated with it.  In order to maintain their standing the club has to restore order, but they’re being opposed by Jacob Hale, Jr (Jeff Kober), who is now running for mayor and is even more determined to remove SAMCRO from Charming.  Gemma, meanwhile, is longing for her family and, unable to return to Charming, goes to visit her newly widowed father, Nate (Hal Holbrook), who suffers from dementia.  I kind of love how I just wrote a summary of the season’s events while only mentioning two of the series’ stars by name.  The creepiest moment by far, however, is the guest appearance of Stephen King, who plays a man named Bachman.  That man is just… yeah.

So, I'm going to look at this season in two different lights; on the one hand you have the plot with Gemma in the US, and on the other hand you have the plot with the search for Abel in Ireland.  I loved the plot with Gemma and the way that we got to see her relationship with people beyond the Sons.  We got to see a bit of who she was before she became an Old Lady.  I also really love the development of her relationship with the Sons who aren't Jax (Hunnam) and Clay (Perlman).  We really get to see that she is as much a part of the club as the members; we see that she is as loved as any of the men in it, possibly more so.  I really get the feeling that if Clay wasn't around, any one of the older men in the club would make a try for her, even Tig who's sexuality is a reoccurring joke on the show.  I also love that the issues that Gemma is trying to overcome here bring up cause to develop the relationship between her and Tara (Siff).  That's a really great relationship, and I like seeing where it goes.

So, yeah.  While I loved the plot with Gemma, I kind of question the Abel plot.  There were great elements of it, but in the end it was a bit much.  I can really see how this whole thing is going to end up completely screwing the Sons over, especially Jax.  Sometimes, I think the show is being set up for a massive kill-them-all ending - a thought that is only reinforced by the Shakespearean themes to it - and the whole thing with the Irish was one of those moments.  Can't you see the show ending like that, with everyone dead?  I do.

The Ledge

Starring: Charlie Hunnam, Terrence Howard, Liv Tyler, Christopher Gorham, Patrick Wilson

Director: Matthew Chapman

Genre: Drama, Thriller

Rating: C

Athiest Gavin Nichols (Hunnam) is about to commit suicide by jumping off a ledge.  Detective Hollis Lucetti (Howard), who is having a particularly bad day to begin with, is responsible for negotiating with Gavin and attempting to get him to come down.  Over the course of the film the story goes back and forth between the present and the past, following the events that lead to these two men being there - for Hollis, it's what happened after he discovered that he's sterile and his kids aren't his kids, and for Gavin it's the development of a relationship with his neighbour, Shana (Tyler), who is married to the Christian fundamentalist Joe (Wilson).

Okay, so to start, I loved the ending of this film.  It wasn't what I expected at all, and I love how they decided to just go with it.  I really liked it.

The ending was probably the only thing that I liked about the film, though.  I found the characters portrayed by both Hunnam and Wilson to be unlikable - I thought that both of them were trying to go to great lengths to offend the other, which in turn just offended me.  It bothered me that the whole thing was based on the idea that the two of them were going to be trying to force their religious beliefs (or lack-thereof) on the other, and then that Hunnam's character decided to sleep with Shana in an attempt to get back at Wilson's character for being religious.  In the end, I think I really understood Wilson's character's motivation the most.  Even though I didn't support him, or even like him, at all, I could at least see his reasoning.

As for Terrence Howard's character... I really didn't see how his back story was relevant to the rest of the film.  It was unnecessary and kind of stupid.  That being said, I did really like the way that they handled the actual negotiation.  I liked the relationship that was built between Howard and Hunnam.  Asides from the conclusion, that was possibly the best part of the film.  There was this potential here, and they just kind of wasted it.

Titanic: Blood and Steel

Starring: Kevin Zegers, Liam Cunningham, Alessandra Mastronardi, Derek Jacobi, Neve Campbell, Chris Noth, Billy Carter, Ophelia Lovibond, Branwell Donaghey, Martin McCann

Creator: Ciaran Donnelly

Genre: Drama, Historical, Miniseries

Rating: C

I have really mixed feelings about this show.  On the one hand, it wasn't poorly acted and a lot of elements of the plot were actually really interesting.  I enjoyed the ongoing labour and religious disputes between the different levels of people building the Titanic.  The struggles of protagonist Mark Muir (Zegers) are really interesting too, both in terms of his personal and work life.  That having been said, however, Titanic: Blood and Steel has very little to do with the Titanic, despite being about the boat.  It misrepresents history in such a way that I can't help but feel it's rather an insult to the real history here.  To the real people who built the Titanic.

Titanic: Blood and Steel is not your traditional Titanic show.  Rather than focus on the events of the sailing and its disastrous ending, Blood and Steel looks at the building of the ship and the people who invested in it before its maiden voyage.  Here we see some of the classic figures in a Titanic story, the big names that we've come to know - Thomas Andrews (Carter), J.P. Morgan (Noth), and Lord Pirrie (Jacobi).  What takes more of a focus, however, than these actual people, is the account of the very fictional Dr. Mark Muir, an Irish immigrant and American engineer who specializes in studying steel.  We also see struggles of the Irish steelworkers, lead by the McCann brothers, Michael (Donaghey) and Conor (McCann), and the Italian artisans, who worked on the boat.

Once again, the thing that really got me here was how much the focus was on highly fictionalized events.  Blood and Steel was at its best when it was looking at the very real problems that Titanic had to overcome in her making, and at its worst when it was focused on Mark complaining about the impurities in the steel.  If this series is to be taken seriously, then it's to be believed that it was these impurities that caused the Titanic to sink and 1,502 people to die, and not the whole hitting an iceberg.  In my opinion there are a lot of really interesting stories that can be told about the Titanic, both during its building and its sailing, that look a lot more at the actual history of the boat.

That being said, I don't think you need to use real people when constructing a work of historical fiction.  There is that "fiction" element to it, and it can be a lot easier to use fictional characters to depict real events.  James Cameron's Titanic is a great example of how this can happen, and I think the other miniseries out this year from the minds of Nigel Strafford-Clark and Julian Fellowes is another good example.  Both works use a basic story that we already know in order to tell us a new story.  They interweave characterizations of real people, that are largely based on documentation about them, and fictional characters, and base it around one very real event.  Jack and Rose were not in themselves real, but the way their story is told gives us an idea of the real Titanic.  Neither Jack nor Rose are elevated in their importance, they are very much the everyman type character (although, in the case of Rose, with a highly elevated class).  The 2012 Titanic is even better in this regards because it spends a lot more time looking at people who actually were real.  Blood and Steel, however, takes the name of the Titanic and a few events that occurred during its making then weaves together this very fictional story, degrading the historical figures in order to elevate the fictional ones.  In the end it just kind of struck a nerve with me.

Speaking of endings, there is also the problem of Blood and Steel's actual ending.  The miniseries ends where most Titanic works begin, with the boat embarking on its doomed voyage, leaving the viewer to wonder just which of the cast members who happen to be on the boat survive.  While I liked the idea of some of the cast being on it, the way they did this was, in a lot of ways, really contrived and a bit forced.  The speculation itself is also rather fun, in a way, but it also leaves the question open as to whether or not there was supposed to be some sort of follow up to this series - Titanic: Blood and Steel part 2.  Because of the way that they did it, it really felt like they weren't ending the series.

Bunheads (Season 1)

Starring: Sutton Foster, Kaitlyn Jenkins, Julia Goldani Telles, Bailey Buntain, Emma Dumont, Kelly Bishop

Creator: Amy Sherman-Palladino

Genre: Comedy, Drama

Rating: B

Michelle Simms (Foster) has fallen in life.  While she used to be a ballerina somehow her life has slipped past her, to the point that she's now a dancer in Vegas - although she is not yet a stripper.  Finally, at an all time low as she comes to the conclusion that her career, and by extension her life, is at an end, Michelle decides to take up the offer of longtime, and persistent, admirer, Hubbell Flowers (Alan Ruck).  The two get married and she moves with him to his sleepy coastal town of Paradise.  Life, however, is not as pleasant as Hubbell promised, particularly after Hubbell dies in a car accident just one day after their marriage.  Now Michelle must decide what to do with her life, figure out how to adjust to Paradise, and come to terms with her mother-in-law, Fanny (Bishop).  Like her, Fanny is also a former dancer, and in Paradise Fanny runs a ballet school, the Paradise Dance Academy, where Michelle very slowly begins to find a new life.

You can really tell that this show comes from the mind of Amy Sherman-Palladino.  The relationship between Michelle and Fanny is very reminiscent of the one between Lorelai and Emily in Gilmore Girls, despite the fact that Fanny is nothing like Emily - asides from being portrayed by the same actress.  There is no Rory here, but you can really see a relationship growing between Michelle and the dance students that is also reminiscent of that.  The other thing that is reminiscent of Gilmore Girls is the small town and the oddballs that come with it.  At times they appear to be a bit much, but I know that with time each one of them is going to really grow on us.  I particularly liked the fact that we got to see some of the old cast members from Gilmore Girls too - it'll help with the attachment to these surreal people.

The plot in itself is a bit questionable, but I like the basic idea.  You can really tell that the marriage is just a tool to get Michelle to Paradise, and I suspect it could have been done without, but it Sherman-Palladino makes it work.  This really feels like a show that is going to grow with time, and looking back at Gilmore Girls again I remember how that grew as well.  There is a lot that I'd like to see happen with Michelle - namely her getting a good friend in Paradise who can support her - and I'm looking forward to seeing how the show plays out.  There's an episode when Michelle's best friend comes to town and I thought it was one of the best episodes of the season - I'd like to see more like that.  Oh, one last thing that I really liked, there are a lot of really random pop culture references here, and they don't simply cover things that are current.  That was one of my favourite features of Gilmore Girls and I'm glad it's being continued here.

Lincoln (2012)

Starring: Daniel Day-Lewis, Sally Field, David Strathairn, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, James Spader, Hal Halbrook, Tommy Lee Jones

Director: Steven Spielberg

Genre: Biography, Drama, Historical

Rating: A

"Do you think we choose the times into which we are born? Or do we fit the times we are born into?"

This movie is going to win Oscars.  That's my prediction.  It's really kind of obvious that it was going to get nominations - this is the type of film that is made for the purpose of winning awards.  Usually I'm a bit iffy about that type of film and find them to be a bit hit or miss, assuming I even go to see them.  But the trailers for Lincoln caught my attention, as did the cast, so I decided to give it a chance and went in expecting good things.  I'm so glad I did, because Lincoln met and exceeded every expectation I had.  This movie was great.  Absolutely amazing.

Lincoln is based on the biography Team of Rivals: The Politicial Genius of Abraham Lincoln by Doris Kearns Goodwin and follows the life of Abraham Lincoln (Day-Lewis) during the final months of his life as he pushes the Thirteenth Amendment forward.  This is a heavy issue and Lincoln faces opposition from within his own party, the Republicans, and his opposition, the Democrats.  Lincoln shows just how much Lincoln had to push in order to make this work and how he struggled to make the amendment happen.  Hanging over it all is the ongoing American Civil War and the fact that Lincoln is being pushed in many ways regarding that; the founder of the Republican Party, Francis Preston Blair (Halbrook), is pushing Lincoln to meet with representatives from the Confederate States and negotiate a peace, the Radical Republicans, lead by Thaddeus Stevens (Jones) want more and fear Lincoln will turn his back on emancipation, his eldest son Robert (Gordon-Levitt) is anxious to be allowed to enlist, while his wife Mary (Field), who isn't exactly mentally stable, is strongly opposed to Robert being allowed to enlist.  Aiding him is his somewhat reluctant Secretary of State, William H. Seward (Straitharn) and the morally questionably operative William N. Bilbo (Spader) - whose name made me think of The Hobbit everytime it was said.

The one thing I disliked about this movie was the way that it inconsistently made note of people, dates, and places.  Despite being really interested in history, the American Civil War is a period that I've never really studied - I'm not an American, and thus never really studied American history in school.  Consequently, I was really unaware on a lot of the specifics about dates, locations, and names - I knew the gist of it going in, but not a lot.  I really appreciated the little titles pointing out who different people were, or were they were, or what date it was - I thought each thing was really important to the story and added some clarification for viewers who don't know the history.  What I disliked, however, was that it was very inconsistent.  The film repeatedly tells you who the three Confederate negotiators are, but doesn't really provide as much information, if any, regarding the Republicans and Democrats who play a far greater role in the story.  I actually had to look online to find the names of the some of the characters, notably Fernando Wood (Lee Pace), who really serves as the primary antagonist in the film.

Asides from that inconsistency, however, I really thought this film was damn near perfect.  The pacing was great, the dialogue as great, the monologues were even better.  Even though I knew how the whole thing ended I was still anxious and worried about whether or not Lincoln would manage to pull through.  Possibly because it's telling a story that the audience is assumed to already know Lincoln is as much a character movie as it is about the history at play here.  Lincoln, obviously, is the main focus here and the insight that Lincoln provides into this man is just awesome.  I absolutely loved his monologues and the ways in which his stories revealed a lot about him.  Other characters that really shined here are that of Thaddeus Stevens - who got in a few good monologues as well - Mary Todd Lincoln, and Robert Todd Lincoln.  You really got to see the problems within the Lincoln family, and the struggles that they each face as the result of the position that Abraham Lincoln achieved.  In a way the title Lincoln can be seen as referring not just to Abraham, but also his wife and two surviving sons - Lincoln's youngest son, Tad (Gulliver McGrath), is also portrayed and while you get to see a lot less of who he is you really get to see the relationship between father-and-son here, and the stark contrast between that father-son relationship and the relationship that Lincoln had with Robert.

The other thing that I really liked about this film was the way it started and ended.  The start has has Lincoln listening to two soldiers recite him the Gettysburg Address in a way that is both awesome and funny at the same time.  The ending is a flashback to Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address.  I really liked the way that these two speeches really bookended each other and the contrast in how they were done - one is one of the most famous speeches Lincoln ever gave and is told to him, and the viewer, by two nameless soldiers.  The other is one that at least in my understanding is less famous but is told by him and really nicely wraps up the film.  This one is definitely worth seeing.

Sons of Anarchy (Season 5)

Starring: Charlie Hunnam, Katey Sagal, Mark Boone Junior, Kim Coates, Tommy Flanagan, Maggie Siff, Ron Perlman, Ryan Hurst, Theo Rossi, Dayton Callie
Creator: Kurt Sutter 

Genre: Crime, Drama, Action, Comedy
Rating: A-

Holy shit.  That's all I can say after having watched this season of Sons of Anarchy. Holy shit.  Season five shows us what happens to the MC following Jax's rise to power.  Jax's sovereignty is shaky from the start; Tig (Coates)'s actions in season four have pitted SAMCRO against the crew of Damon Pope (Harold Perrineau), a man who has a lot more power and in many ways is a lot scarier than Jax.   A series of home invasions have begun to rock Charming, with the police looking to blame SAMCRO at least in part for them.  Jax must also find a way to get rid of Clay (Perlman) once and for all, while Clay is trying to figure out how to regain his power.  Gemma (Sagal), meanwhile, is on a path to hitting rock bottom as she begins drinking and smoking heavier than before, and ends up in the bed of a pimp, Nero (Jimmy Smits), who uses his relationship with Gemma to forge a relationship with Jax and the club.  Tara (Siff) closes herself off to Gemma once again, and is still looking to get her and her family away from the club, while also using her doctoring services in an attempt to get closer to Otto (Sutter).  Oh, and Opie (Hurst) is beginning to question the club even more, and his future within it.

Every episode this season had me starring at the screen going "what the fuck".  I was never really sure just what was about to happen, and every twist that came shocked me.  I laughed, I cried, I got angry, I cried some more.  Even though it's only just ended, I'm already eager for the next season to start up so that I can find out what happens next.  I think I am now more convinced than ever that by series end everyone will be dead - I also think that by the end of it all, Otto will have no more body parts, at least on his face.

This season was a bit jumpy at points, and at times the direction was a bit confusing.  Things seemed to happen not necessarily because they made sense but because they had to happen and it's TV.  I also spent a lot of time watching what was happening with Jax and really questioning the decisions that he was making.  This season is about the descent of Jax and his transition into the kind of man that Clay is.  There's also a lot of fighting between Gemma and Tara, and I can't help but feel that the show is setting things up for one of their departures from things as well, if not both of them.  Once again, everyone's going to die, that's my prediction.

If you've seen this series, or at least the first few episodes, I really recommend watching this video released by EW - clicking it has some very strongly implied spoilers, though, so don't do so unless you already know what happens or don't mind figuring it out.

Sons of Anarchy (Season 2)

Starring: Charlie Hunnam, Katey Sagal, Mark Boone Junior, Kim Coates, Tommy Flanagan, Maggie Siff, Ron Perlman, Ryan Hurst, William Lucking, Theo Rossi, Dayton Callie, Johnny Lewis
Creator: Kurt Sutter 

Genre: Crime, Drama, Action, Comedy
Rating: A

The second season of Sons of Anarchy nicely takes the set up that was the first season and expands on it.  This season is far better than the first, with a more concise and clearer plot and a higher degree of threat to the club.  The issues surrounding the first season are still at force here, especially the threat of ATF and the way that Tara (Siff) fits into Jax (Hunnam)’s world, but there are also whole new threats to the world of Sam Crow and the issues between Clay (Perlman) and Jax begin to really come into the light.  Jax, meanwhile, learns that Donna’s death was at the hands of a club member on the order of Clay and begins to use this as a means of challenging Clay, although never so severely so as to outright challenge Clay’s continued leadership.  Rounding things out is the club’s involvement in the pornography studio run by Big Otto (Sutter)’s wife, Luanne (Dendrie Taylor), who is being threatened by another studio run by Georgie Caruso (Tom Arnold), and the reparation of the relationship between SAMCRO and the Real IRA when its head Jimmy O’Phelan (Titus Welliver) comes stateside.

The big threat of the season is the new-to-Charming white separatists group, the League of American Nationalists (LOAN), who quickly begin to try to drive the Sons out of Charming – early on in the series, this results in the kidnapping and gang rape of Gemma Morrow (Sagal).  Gemma hides the rape from Clay, Jax, and other SAMCRO members, telling only Unster (Callie) and Tara, who try to help her deal with the attack throughout the season.  Tara, meanwhile is trying to figure out just what her role is as Jax’s Old Lady, and how to reconcile it with her role as a doctor at the hospital. 

I think, so far, my favourite moment of this series has to be when Gemma and Tara finally bonded. Over guns. In the parking lot behind a porn film studio run in part by the club. The whole idea of Gemma being this over protective bitchy mother who spends a lot of time trying to control how her son lives his life got old really fast. Really, really fast. I love how this season Gemma seems to have decided to accept Tara and the role that she now plays in Jax’s life and has set out to help Tara adjust to life as an “old lady.” There are a lot of moments that really showed this transition, but my favourite was definitely when Gemma re-armed Tara and taught her how to shoot – and provided her with a way to take out some of her stress and assert her dominance. It was an interesting development and I think really showed just how Gemma went from being a girl not unlike Tara to the matriarch that she is now, as well as suggesting that with time Tara will fill in the role of matriarch herself.

 I also really like the journey that you can see each of the characters embarking on.  This season is a lot easier to follow than the first one, with things seeming to make a lot more sense and being a lot more cohesive.  I also really, really like the whole idea of Tara and Jax being together and dealing with that, instead of not being together and wanting to but pretending to not want to... yeah, that part got annoying really fast last season.  I know things aren't going to be all hunky dory for the lovers and their MC in the future, but somehow the fact that they at least have each other gives me hope.  That is, until you consider the fact that this is supposed to be inspired by Hamlet, where everyone dies horribly.

Silver Linings Playbook (2012)

Starring: Bradley Cooper, Jennifer Lawrence, Robert De Niro, Jacki Weaver, John Ortiz, Anupam Kher, Julia Stiles, Chris Tucker

Director: David O. Russell

Genre: Comedy, Drama, Romance

Rating: A

Going into this movie I wasn't too sure about a lot of it.  It looked good, but I tend to be disappointed by Bradley Cooper movies, particularly this year.  I love Jennifer Lawrence, but I was really hesitant about seeing her pair off as a romantic partner for the much older Cooper - Lawrence is 22, Cooper 37.  But, it looked good, I like Lawrence, and I like David O. Russell, so I gave this film a shot.  And, by God, I'm glad I did.

Silver Linings Playbook follows Pat Solitano (Cooper), a man newly released from a mental health facility, into the care of his parents, Pat Sr. (De Niro) and Dolores (Weaver).  Following discovering that his wife Nikki (Brea Bree) was having an affair, Pat had a violent episode, leading to his incarceration and eventual diagnosis with bi-polar disorder. Now released, Pat is determined to prove to Nikki that he has changed and bettered himself, and eventually get back together with her - he's only hindered by the fact that there's a restraining order against him, preventing him from coming into contact with Nikki.  Even Pat's good friend, Ronnie (Oritz) and his wife Veronica (Stiles) refuses to contact Nikki on behalf of Pat, despite maintaining a friendship with her.  Then the recently widowed Tiffany Maxwell (Lawrence), Veronica's younger sister, bonds with Pat over their share neuroses and offers to deliver a letter to Nikki for him - if he participates in a dance competition with her.  Overlaying the whole thing is Pat Sr.'s obsession with football; after losing his job, Pat Sr. became a bookie in order to earn money to open a restaurant.  Pat Sr. is rather compulsive about his game-day superstitions, one of which requires Pat Jr.'s presence during games - something that Pat Jr. is not particularly eager in participating in.

I absolutely loved this story.  It's awkward and uncomfortable at moments, but in a way that completely makes sense in the film.  There are a lot of moments when I wanted to yell at Bradley Cooper's character for his actions - but his actions made sense given the nature of his character.  I felt similarly about Robert De Niro's character.  You spend so much of this movie wanting them to just calm down and be nice to each other, but that wouldn't work.  While Cooper's Pat is diagnosed with bi-polar it isn't hard to see that De Niro's Pat probably has it too.  The one problem that I had here was the fact that I really couldn't follow a lot of the football stuff and it wasn't until the first half of the movie or so was over that it began to make sense and really have a point, at least in my mind.

I both loved and hated Jennifer Lawrence's casting.  I think Lawrence played her character absolutely perfectly, and there was definite chemistry between her and Cooper, despite the age difference.  I went into this movie hoping that they didn't go the route of making her the love interest and midway through found myself really hoping that she would be the love interest just because of the chemistry between the two of them.  In a lot of ways, I found the character of Tiffany Maxwell to be a lot more intriguing than the one of Pat Solitano.  The one thing that I disliked here was that her age wasn't really established.  From my understanding of the book (which I haven't read), Tiffany is supposed to be older than Lawrence, but because the film doesn't really address this we're left thinking that this 22 year old - who looks younger - is a recovering sex addicted widow who is romantically interested in Bradley Cooper.  Relating to the overall Tiffany problems is the casting of Julia Stiles as her sister.  I like Julia Stiles overall, I just didn't really buy her as Jennifer Lawrence's sister - especially once we saw the actors playing their parents.  Casting is important, and I'm of the opinion that if you're casting two people to be siblings - especially when there's a good age gap - they should probably look a bit alike.

That having been said, though, this was a really good movie.  Really good.  Just to add into the general things that I liked about it, my favourite scene in the entire movie is early on when Pat has just finished reading Hemingway, has a "wait, that was the ending" moment, then throws the book out the window and goes on a rant about it, waking up his parents and flipping out, despite it being four in the morning.  I have wanted to react like this when reading books, and it was just so awesome to see someone actually do so.  The opening of the movie still had me a bit unsure about things, but this scene really cinched it for me.

Spike (IDW Publishing)

Creator: Brian Lynch, Joss Whedon
Publisher: IDW Publishing
Genre: Fantasy, Drama, Horror, Comic
Rating: B+

I wasn't initially going to review this mini-series, but I decided to do so while writing the review for Buffy the Vampire Slayer Season Eight, simply because it acts as a bridge connecting Angel: After the Fall to Season Eight.  I'm not entirely sure yet if I'm going to do stand-alone reviews of the other mini-series within the After the Fall franchise, or the Buffy the Vampire Slayer comic franchise either, but Spike is special.

Initially Spike was conceived as a longer series, but the move to Dark Horse Comics changed things up a bit, limiting this run.  Instead, what we have is a eight issue arch, placing Spike and a new crew in Las Vegas, once again in opposition to regular villains, lawyers Wolfram and Hart and mentally unstable vampire Drusilla.  There's a lot of discussion about Spike's soul in this series, which is always an interesting topic, and by the end of it Spike has acquired a space ship space (that resembles a penis in this series) full of space bugs, who become his next new crew.

I really thought this series was a lot of fun.  It was snarky and dark and returned Spike to the (mental) place where I loved him.  There's no Buffy, but Spike needs to grow a bit on his own - we saw that in season five of Angel.  This arch is also fun and nicely introduces new characters - like Season Eight it also reestablishes old favourites, like Drusilla.  I love Drusilla and I doubt I will ever get tired of them bringing her back to screw with the day once again.

Most importantly, though, I really like how this arch connects After the Fall to Season Eight.  My biggest problem with Season Eight is the fact that it's hard to place just when that all is happening, this arch tries to establish a bit of continuity between the two series that I think is going to be continued (at least a bit) in Angel and Faith and Buffy the Vampire Season Nine.  Or maybe I'm just being a bit too optimistic, seeing as I've only read about ten issues of each series.

Buffy the Vampire Slayer Season Eight

Creator: Joss Whedon

Publisher: Dark Horse Comics

Genre: Fantasy, Drama, Horror, Comic

Rating: B-

Set some time after the completion of both season seven of Buffy the Vampire Slayer and season five of its spin-off Angel, the comic series Buffy the Vampire Slayer Season Eight shows us how Buffy Summers and the surviving Scoobies manage following the defeat of the First Evil and the creation of a multitude of slayers.  Slaying has become a secret, paramilitary organization helmed by Buffy, and is now starting to draw the attention of governments. A new organization, Twilight, is gaining prominence and directly threatens the slayers. This season brings an introduction of new characters, primarily in the form of slayers, and a return of old favourites (and not-so-favourites).

The thing that I really disliked about this season was that it was really hard to place in time.  You know from the start that it's set after the conclusion of the TV runs of both shows, but it's not as clear, at least from the start, where it's occurring in relation to the comic Angel: After the Fall and its many mini series.  This is a problem that's never really entirely resolved, a disappointment given as it becomes a bit integral to the plot later on - especially as characters cross over from Buffy to Angel and back again.  This is a problem that, to the best of my knowledge, never really gets resolved, although it ceases to be an issue (or as much of one) in the next editions of this story, Buffy the Vampire Slayer Season Nine and Angel and Faith, along with their mini series, all of which are under one publishing house and presumably one direction.

There are really kind of two arches here, as is common within Joss Whedon works.  There is both a Big and a Little Bad, and for the purpose of remaining relatively spoiler free, I'm not going to identify who (or what) either is beyond the existence of Twilight.  If you really want to know, check out the Buffy Wiki.  With this, two arch idea in mind, I'm going to say that for the most part I really liked the first arch and the Little Bad, while for the most part I kind of disliked the second arch and the Big Bad.

For the first arch, there's the whole feel of the world of Buffy, even though it's in a completely different setting. We see Buffy trying to step into this leadership role that is so much bigger than anything she's done before and really succeeding at it, while also still coming up against a lot of the same struggles that she's dealt with for many seasons now.  You can really see that she's struggling. There are a lot of ties to the way the show was, especially in the earlier years, which I loved.  In particular, both the Slayers and the organization of Twilight really reminded me of season four's Initiative.  There were a couple of more stand-alone episodes that didn't seem to work as well as the more overall arch, notably the Japanese vampires who stole Dracula's powers, although I did enjoy the return of Dracula.  This wasn't too bothersome overall, though, as I don't think Buffy's ever really been known for its stand-alone episodes - no one cares about Inca the Mummy Girl or the hyena possessed students who ate Principal Flutie (the exception here, is "Once More with Feeling" which was just awesome).

The second arch, where timing becomes a bit more important, is a lot less well done.  I liked the overall fight and the motives and methods of our heroes - I even really liked the conclusion of things.  I didn't really like some of the themes, though, or how some things played out after the revelation of Twilight.  Some of the themes here are ones that played into the themes of the series as a whole, which I liked, while others seemed to violate the rules of the world, which I disliked.  These rule breakages seemed to be waved away with a bit of a "it's magic" bullshit, which I tend to dislike as well.  I had to suspend my disbelief a fair bit in this arch, which I don't like.  There's just... this lack of consistency, I guess.

What I'm a bit undecided about here, is regarding the relationships this season.  There are a few here: the ongoing Angel/Buffy/Spike triangle, Willow/Kennedy, Dawn and Xander's love lifes (both which see the introduction of new characters), and Buffy's imposed stint of celibacy.  To start, the likes.  I really like what they did with Willow and Kennedy.  While I'm not the biggest Kennedy fan, I appreciate the fact that the writers respected Tara's death and haven't caved into the demand to get rid of Kennedy and bring her back.  I also like the fact that the two of them struggle and go through ups and downs, because ups and downs (and more downs and sometimes deaths) is what Buffy is about.  I also loved the Dawn storyline, and the fact that we're slowly given the backstory as to just how Dawn became a giant (yes, this is related to her romantic life).  Xander's was cute too.  Xander tends to be rather abused in the Buffyverse, particularly when it comes to romantic entanglements, so every time they introduce a new romantic partner for him I find myself hoping that she's the one and wondering just how it's going to explode.

Now, for the less good.  I have a lot of mixed feelings regarding the triangle.  In general, I have no problem with its continued presence within the series, and I really understand the perspectives of both Buffy and Spike.  On the one hand, Buffy will always view Angel as the first love of her life, the good guy, and the guy who got away.  At the same time, she also views Spike as the guy who's been there, especially in the last few seasons when she's been at her lowest, but he's also the guy who's hurt her.  I don't doubt that she really does love him, as revealed in the finale of the TV series, but that love is a convoluted and confusing thing.  She's not yet at a place where she can really accept and embrace that love, and might never be there.  I don't know if they'll end up together in the end or not, or if they'll end up both alive in the end, or both dead, or what - it being Joss, I kind of suspect that Buffy, Angel, and Spike will all die before this triangle is ever really resolved.  The point is, for Buffy there is always that love for Angel, and I think there is also that love for Spike, regardless of who she's with - be it Angel, Spike, or someone else entirely.  For Spike, there is also always Buffy, regardless of who he's with.

At the same time, Angel is not in this situation.  Buffy is not always the one for Angel, in fact I don't think she's been the one for him for some time now.  Within the continuity of Angel he has moved on.  He's found another great love and it is for her that he longs, not Buffy.  After a point, when Buffy was brought up within Angel it was more and more with either nostalgia or out of a desire to oppose Spike; this is particularly prominent in season five, when Spike joins the cast.  When he enters into the Buffy world, however, any development of the character in Angel appears to be discarded - which really, serves as a slap in the face to his relationship with Cordelia.  For me, this really becomes clear in After the Fall, when Angel is broken and thinks he's dying - it is for Cordelia he calls for (inadvertently naming his male dragon after her), not Buffy.  To have him fall back into the "let's be with Buffy" thing here just seems like an insult to that character development.

Under the Tuscan Sun (2003)

Starring: Diane Lane, Sandra Oh, Lindsay Duncan

Director: Audrey Wells

Genre: Comedy, Drama, Romance

Rating: C+

"I'll hire the muscular descendants of Roman gods to do the heavy lifting." 

Writer Frances Mayes (Lane) has had her seemingly perfect life shattered; following the discovery that her husband is cheating on her she goes through a quick divorce and emerges depressed and unable to write.  Enter her newly pregnant lesbian best friend, Patti (Oh), and Patti's partner, Grace (Kate Walsh), who decide to sent Frances on a gay tour of Tuscany.  There her tour group stops in the small town of Cortona where, after a meeting with eccentric British actress Katherine (Duncan) Frances decides to buy a dilapidated villa.  The film then focuses on the restoration of the villa, with the help of a crew of Polish immigrants, and Frances' attempts to pull her life together and once again find love and happiness.

This is one of those movies that has a lot wrong with it, but is still fun and enjoyable.  I think it's the type of movie that critics like to be hard on because of all the cliches and simplicity behind it.  It is in its very essence a chick flick and thus to a degree that makes it bad.  At the same time, however, it's a well done chick flick and that in my mind makes it good.  There's a lot of comedy to it, and a fair bit of romance.  Lane does a lot of chick flicks and she does them pretty well.  They might not become classics or must-see-films, but they're definitely the ones that you go to when you want a good cry or that uplifting feeling that you can get from a romance.

What I really like about Under the Tuscan Sun, however, isn't the romance in itself.  It's the lack of romance that makes this movie so good.  Frances is not learning to love life again because she falls in love, she's not finding her muse and happiness in another man.  She's finding it in life around her as a whole, and really realizing that there's more to life than just love - there's more to happiness than being with someone.  There's a point early on in the film where Frances makes a wish about the things that she would like to see happen in the house, and the ways in which they come true without being what Frances had thought.  The movie is a bit of a rarity for a chick flick largely in that it isn't about the chick getting the guy.  Maybe not the best film, but I definitely enjoyed it.