Bert Vandecasteele

Month: September 2009

  • Ep. 16-17: The Incident

    And that’s another wrap. The last season finale leading into another season – all that’s left now is the final season… and the series finale. And, in typical LOST fashion, this one did not disappoint. It left us with plot twists to ponder about for the next few months, and delivers the most enigmatic cliffhanger I’ve ever seen on this show. But more on that later, let’s stick with our structure and start with the beginnings:

    The Episode….

    Let’s start with our centric character: Jacob. He was undoubtedly at the centre of this episode, and gave us a serious nod towards the existence of destiny on this show. You can feel that Jacob and his nameless nemesis are at the core of the LOST mythology – their characters are probably symbolic, and if they are, I’m willing to bet one of them is destiny and one is free will. Or something. Maybe the true nature of the show won’t be so complicated in the end?

    I had a lot of fun watching the finale. I do have to say that it doesn’t beat the one we got last season. I think that’s the writer in me talking: I loved the whole “the beginning is the end” set-up, where the story seemed to be doing a loop and caught up with itself. It was a bit of poetry. This finale was none of that – but then again, neither was the season. Season five was all about the science fiction – so the finale really does seal the deal.

    A lot of people got annoyed over character motivation on this one. I personally loved the wobbly state of mind the characters seemed to be in: no one seemed to know what was going to happen anymore (just like the audience, by the way) so they just went along for the ride. With all due consequences (which might just be erased from existence after all – who will tell?).

    My only gripe is that I’m not really sure whether I’m buying into this whole “Evil Locke” thing. Sure, it was quite a shocker, but on the other hand I (and a lot of fans with me) really liked Locke and didn’t really see this as a fitting end for the guy. Then again: I always figured he’d be evil in the end; O’Quinn has a knack for tackling evil roles. Guess I’ll have to sit this one out, see where it goes and then decide.

    The Questions…

    It’s funny to see how certain things get a new light shed on them after a while. The first question (How Locke ended up in the coffin) just got a new question handed to it: How did Jacob’s nemesis enter Locke’s body? And: is it really Locke’s body? There seem to be two of them on the island.

    The same thing seems to happen with the third question: How do they all return? The question now becomes: where do they return to? Are they going back to LA X? Or back to island times anno 2007? There is no way of knowing what happened when Juliet detonated the bomb. Not even a small hint.

    Did the Losties end up on the island by coincidence? Some flashbacks (notably Sawyer, Kate, Sun, Jin and maybe even Locke’s) seem to suggest there is some destiny involved. Sayid and Hurley had their defining “touched by Jacob” moments after they were rescued. Is there some sort of pattern going on there?

    Were we given a remotely coherent answer to who Jacob is? I reckon this finale makes the whole matter even more complicated. But at least now we know he’s a real (as in: physical) being. Is he a God? We don’t know.

    The Cliffhanger: what’s next?

    What a very, very interesting cliffhanger. When I watched it for the first time, I was completely emotionally invested in it (mainly because I hadn’t been keeping track of time and thought it’d last a bit longer). I’ve always said Juliet is the perfect tragic character, and now she’s met her tragic end. Of course, whether she is truly dead is a question that remains unanswered.

    In fact, the question whether anyone who’s died so far is dead, remains unanswered. If Juliet triggered the bomb, and if Daniel was right, history as we know it has been altered. It’s been altered in such a way that Flight 815 never crashes, which causes the last five seasons to not have happened at all.

    I’m not entirely sure that’s a good thing. How can the final season part ways with the other ones and still bring the series to a coherent end? The writer in me says it’s not a good idea to feature such a game changer near the end of a series, as I’ve seen series get destroyed by them: the horcruxes and wand lore in the Harry Potter series, for example.  It has the risk of feeling a bit like a Deus ex Machina. Obviously, though, I don’t know what the writers are still planning on doing. I trust them enough to know they won’t spend the last season off island – they’ve proven their worth so far.

    But then again, the pessimist in me is holding on to his heart, as certain things in the season finale were placed without context and hence felt wrong. The revelation as Locke being… well, “that other guy”, was presented in such a manner that I just have to believe that where they’re going with this is any good. If this is truly the end of John Locke, it’s a shame and an anticlimax too. Unless they’re taking this beyond the realm of awesome.

    But did that all actually happen if Juliet successfully altered history? I hate this finale, there’s nothing definite I can write about. But that’s what I love about this show – there’s always a challenge.

    In All…

    A very nice, emotional episode. Had me hooked for the entire duration. The problem with it (the big Jughead audience middle finger in the end excluded) is that you have no way of telling what information was still relevant. Jacob has been killed, but history might have been altered. Will the universe course-correct? Where will our Losties end up? And when? And why?

    Nothing really mattered in the end. I couldn’t help but feeling some of it might just be pointless later on. But hey, benefit of the doubt has got me five seasons in and I’m obviously still excited, so I’ll sit this one out until next January.

    See you then!

    Favourite Quote: Jacob: They’re coming.

  • District 9

    District 9Sometimes, a movie can get really, really close. Unfortunately, the closer they get, the harder they fall. Today’s fall belongs to District 9.

    Insert clicking noises here

    The premise is good enough: a huge alien ship hovers over the city of Johannesburg (South-Africa, wonder if it’s a coincidence we got a tourist video for the country before the trailers started). Yes, that’s not New York, Los Angeles, Paris or London – Johannesburg. Aliens are extracted from the vehicle and since they can’t seem to get along with humans due to cultural reasons, they are put into a slum – the District 9.

    The movie starts out as a documentary explaining the facts above and showing off the pover lifestyle of the aliens. It then cuts to MNU (Multinational United), a big firm that’s taken charge of everything revolving around those aliens. They’ve built a camp twenty kilometres from the city – a camp they plan on moving the aliens into. In order to do that, the creatures must be evicted. And in order to accomplish that, they need a gopher, who comes in the name of Wikus Van De Merwe.

    A smile is cheaper than a bullet

    Now, first off, I want to say that Sharlto Copley, who plays Wikus, is a first class actor. He might start off as comic relief, but soon he is dragged through a whole range of emotions – so many that you hardly notice you’re still watching the same actor at the end. The movie is worth seeing for this guy alone. All of the other cast is good as well – as are the aliens (even if they are a tad uninspired). It’s refreshing to see a big budget film made without big budget actors.

    As you would expect from a movie produced by manchild Peter Jackson (whom I greatly respect, by the way), this movie is highly entertaining and looks really good. Wikus’ adventure is a chilling one, and you’ll be going along every step of it. And when shit hits the fan and the fan hits people (who then explode into a tiny million pieces ad nauseam), you’ll love watch the cartoony violence this movie holds. It’s like being a kid again.

    In All…

    But wait – what was that last sentence? But weren’t we watching a documentary? Exactly. Which brings my review to a close. The thing that destroys this experience is the incoherence that surrounds it. Random parts of the movie are made in documentary style (news footage, interviews, …) whereas other parts are just your normal popcorn type experience. Why is that? Why couldn’t they decide on one style and stick with it?

    District 9 is a great movie. But it’s got potential to be at least twice as good. Why they couldn’t decide on one style, I don’t know, but it’s killed it all. After I left the theatre, I even felt a bit empty and slightly angry that it went that way. I loved the first thirty minutes. I loved the story. But they couldn’t make it so that I could wholeheartedly recommend this movie to anyone without a big “but” in front of it. What a shame…

  • Antichrist

    AntichristI had never before seen a Lars von Trier film. I knew however that usually, they are very brutal and harsh yet strangely beautiful at he same time. I can tell you straight off the bat that Antichrist is no different.

    Grief

    At first, Von Triers concept seems a bit vague: the movie is called antichrist, but revolves around a couple trying to get out of depression after their toddler jumped out of a window. In order to do this, they visit the woman’s greatest fear and end up in Eden, a thick forest-with-a-cabin in the middle of nowhere. This part of the movie makes perfect sense. What comes next, however, gets stranger, creepier and uglier – with a writhingly atrocious last twenty minutes.

    Since it’s hard to give a bit of in-depth appreciation for the plot without giving it away for those still wanting to see this film, I’ll put it behind spoiler tags.

    [spoiler]My main gripe is – but that might just be me not understanding it – how the stories goes from “death of a child” to “my wife is a witch” in about fifteen minutes. Don’t get me wrong, I like the two parts of the story, but in my mind the link between the both of them was missing. The witch storyline was nicely executed, with symbolism that was eerie at first but shown as a saviour later on (the fox, the deer and the bird). It was extremely bizarre, yet intelligible.[/spoiler]

    Summary: movie consists of two subplot which I cannot seem to connect.

    Pain (Chaos Reigns)

    As a movie, Antichrist is breathtaking. At first because it’s so beautiful (check the trailer for the parts where She is walking through the darkened woods, casting light on the trees), later on because it’s sickeningly horrible. Charlotte Gainsbourg (again in a tragedy-filled role, I guess that’s because she has the face of a beaten dog) and Willem Defoe (who completely ruined himself for me by his performance in Spiderman) perform magnificently: they’re credible and natural. You don’t have the feeling you’re watching two actors – these people seem to feel the pain.

    And with them, we do too.

    Which brings me to the next part: the pain.

    Despair (Gynocide)

    In the last twenty minutes – and you know this is coming as soon as you start watching, you know it is coming somehow – things completely blow up. All of a sudden, the tension relieves itself in a horrible, horrible couple of scenes that seem to go on for ages. And, because of the eighty credible minutes before that… you won’t be able to resist.

    Once again, I will use spoilers for those who want to see for themselves (which I am not sure I should advise).

    [spoiler]If you can watch this without flinching, you probably have no soul. Did they really have to squish testicles, squirt blood, drill through a leg and cut off a clitoris? Wasn’t one of these things enough? I know a von Trier film gets ugly – but this isn’t ugly anymore: it’s sick.[/spoiler]

    Summary: ew ew ew ew.

    In All…

    But still: Antichrist is pretty – before the shit hits the fan and the log hits the – nevermind. That’s why I’m not sure whether I should like it or not. The symbolism is there. The acting is there. The directing and camerawork are most certainly there. So why did it have to turn out the way it did? Why so much? If I’m eating a vomit-flavoured pancake, I certainly don’t want another one and another one and then another one. I might get used to the flavour!

    Which brings me to the strangest experience: the crowd. After reading some imdb reviews, it became apparent that there is a crowd for this movie – who call it art. I personally don’t know enough of art to call something art (and movies are always a bit strange on this level), so that’s not what I’m getting at. People tend to justify whatever they didn’t like about Antichrist by saying von Trier “had to do it” to attract a crowd. He had to shoot explicit penetrative sex scenes. He had to be so gruesome, or no one would come.

    What a load of bull. Why would someone make a movie that is so adamant on destroying itself and the characters in it, on destruction as a concept and then put in some different scenes to attract a crowd? He put in a penis and a vagina because he thought he needed to. Jesus. He’s a director – a very good one, I have to admit – but given the nature of his movies he will shock you. Just admit the director shocked you. Stop being a pussy and blaming it on others.

    It’s okay.

    It shocked me too.

  • Harry Potter (1) and the Philosopher’s Stone (J.K. Rowling)

    Yes, I know what you’re thinking: just after having updated my website to make it look a bit more professional, I smash it all to bits by reviewing a children’s book. But, the thing is, Harry Potter isn’t just any children’s book: it’s a book series that captivated adults around world through children, and on top of that it was so influential that it gets used as a comparison for just about everything.

    What do I think of Harry Potter? It’s hard to say – but you’ll find out during these reviews, I guess.

    There isn’t much to say about the first book – this one really is a children’s book. It’s my opinion that Rowling always writes for someone Harry’s age – seeing how he’s only eleven, there’s not much to be had here. I do remember that it blew me away when I first read it (about five years ago): I didn’t see the end coming. If you know how Harry Potter books work a bit later on and you look back on the first part, it’s obvious who the culprit is and what’s going down… but for a first book, the mystery is pretty solid.

    My biggest criticism would be that the story is very, very fragmented. For ages, at first, nothing really happens (the book is almost halfway when he finally arrives at Hogwarts) and after that it doesn’t really pick up more pace: there’s a lot of introducing going on (obviously, as there are a lot of characters), followed by exciting adventures featuring magical objects of all diversities. It’s the end that sticks to mind – Rowling ties up every seemingly random element in the two final chapters – forty pages and the revelations are over.

    In all…

    I like the first book. It’s cute. Even if it is really fragmented at first, all of the smaller elements (Norbert, The chocolate frogs, Wizard Chess, the mirror of Erised) come together in the end – even if it does feel a bit forced at times. But that doesn’t matter – you just immediately fall in love with Harry and Ron (Hermione comes a bit later on). And that’s what does the trick!

  • Professor Layton and the Diabolical Box

    Professor Layton and the Diabolical BoxAs you undoubtedly know by now, I have a soft spot for a consistent narrative in video games. It’s something video games – as opposed to the other media I review – severely lack, and in my opinion one of the key reasons they don’t get the critical acclaim they should. Whenever they do, the consistent narrative is there.

    My case for the point I made above is the wonderful Professor Layton and the Diabolical Box, the sequel to the very-popular-with-a-very-small-crowd Professor Layton and the Curious Village. The game remains the same, but the story told is different. Just the way I wanted it to be.

    Layton’s apprentice saves the day!

    Professor Hershel Layton is a puzzle solving expert living in London with his apprentice, the boy Luke. Together they solve riddles and enigmas – all while upholding the general rule of being not only smart, but being a gentleman. Throughout the story, they talk with a thick British accent as they scientifically unravel mystery after mystery.

    The game works as an interactive story, much like those typical Japanese games – you get pictures of people on your screen and read what they have to say. In between of the story segments you wander through the area, talking to people. A conversation usually ends in a puzzle, which can be all sorts of stuff. You could inquire about the box the title refers to and get a puzzle about a bucket of water. The game never hides the fact that it is a puzzle-solving game (or a video game in general), so don’t be surprised if all people in some backwards country village spend their days with mind twisters.

    I think I’ve got it!

    The thing is, I don’t really care all that much for puzzles. I think puzzles are fun for a while, but building a whole game around them doesn’t sound all that interesting. What keeps me coming back, however, is the wonderful charm that hangs around every aspect of the game – the characters are cute, their voices sound good, the music fits, and last but not least: the storyline is great.

    Do you remember seeing a Disney film as a kid? Remember being immersed in this magical world? That’s kind of what Professor Layton does to me: it sucks me into a really, really nice storyline which makes sense from start to finish. You could argue – and perhaps partially rightly so – that these kind of stories are directed towards children. I wouldn’t say you’re wrong, per se, but just that you’re making the truth a bit more simple and plain than she is. Harry Potter has shown us that the key to winning the hearts of adults is through (their) children. That’s the kind of story Layton tells us: a cute fairytalelike story about gentlemen who find a logical solution to every kind of problem. Kind of like plumbers in top hats.

    In All…

    So even if you dislike the idea of solving about a hundred puzzles, if you like consistent and fun stories, you will probably like Professor Layton and the Diabolical Box. It’s cute, it’s touching and it never tries to be more than it actually is. It’s a selfconscious videogame that never tries to convince you of anything, and just because of that, because of the fact that it just acknowledges its existence and shows you it is there, it is a truly marvellous experience!