Let me tell you this straight: I had the greatest mood swings reading The Chronicles of Narnia (all seven books). At times it was unbelievably corny, at other times it was eery (but not on purpose, I think) and there were rare times were I was truly interested and curious as to how it would unfold. So how do I review this?
First off: it’s very apparent – more so than in the movies – that The chronicles of Narnia is actually a religious work in desguise. And that’s okay, I have got nothing against that: I think one of the great
strenghts of religion is the fact that everyone can be united even if there points of view aren’t exactly the same. But in the end, the view C.S. Lewis shows us in The Chronicles of Narnia is scary to say the least – if not borderlining religious terrorism.
What do you learn from reading these books? That there is a God – Aslan – that creates and destroys. That all things come to an end. Now this is okay. The question is how and why exactly things seem to end. In Narnia’s case, the end of the world comes with its secularisation. Its enlightenment. And that is a scary thought. Do you really want to feed this thought to children – that critical thinking about religion might have desastrous consequences?
My conclusion in all this is the following: there’s books you can read that never age. The Lord of the Rings is such a book: it’s over fifty years old but it still works. Books by Roald Dahl do this too – and they’re almost just as moralizing as Narnia. But The Chronicles of Narnia describes the glory of an era where people still feared God and lived in constant angst of pissing him off.
That means you can only read it as an ancient text – like people who read Jane Austen: it’s a story that doesn’t apply well to the current society. The difference between Lewis and someone like Austen is, however, that Lewis is not a good writer – not even close. His work is chaotic, poorly written and way too stereotypical. If an author says something is indescribable every other page (a trend that seems to get worse towards the end), then you just know he’s not the brightest page in the book.
So why people see C.S. Lewis as one of the greatest authors of the 20th Century, I will never understand. And how deeply religious people don’t get offended by reading this, I don’t get either. I guess that’s just how the world works?
(Little disclaimer before we start: I usually always call movies by their original names – in this case it would be Inkheart. But seeing how Inkheart is based on a German book and I just can’t shake the book’s original name off me, I am going to call the movie like the book: Tintenherz.)
Messes and where they come from
It’s a movie about a book, based on a book, with characters from books. Not an easy task! Tintenherz could have been a revolution in movie making. Why? We have a very successful (at least in the US and Germany) author, Cornelia Funke, who promised fans she’d be keeping guard over her story and even signing up as producer of the movie. She cast Brendan Fraser herself, kept a close look on the scriptwriters… Nothing could go wrong.
But they did. This movie is a horrible mess. More than that: it is a horrible mess in the typical places where book-to-movie adaptions tend to be messes, but this mess is so inexplicable and so random that I for the life of me can’t seem to understand who made said mess and where it came from. Like having two cats, and one of them takes a dump on your carpet. It boggles the mind.
Where does this movie go wrong? Strangely enough – with a mediocre actor like Fraser at the helm of the performance ship – not in its casting. Every actor does a great job. The typical book-to-movie give-ins do apply: Meggie is actually a lot younger than the person playing her, Mo has the voice but not the looks… But one is used to that. Special kudos to Paul Bettany for playing the role of Staubfinger (Dustfinger) and doing a great job at it. He is one creepy guy. No kudos to Andy Serkis, who plays Capricorn in such a manner that he’s so unscary it’s laughable. And, oddly enough, the introduction of Capricorn in the movie (after about half an hour) is the point where things start going terribly, terribly wrong.
Now, I have to say I wasn’t the biggest fan of Capricorn while reading the book. He’s pretty dull, does little to nothing and isn’t really scary in my opinion. But he was never laughable – which is exactly what he is in the movie. Every other line is a joke – but not a good one. Now I realize this isn’t Serkis’ fault, but he performs the character in such a way that it becomes plain and boring at best.
Up to the point where we first see Capricorn, the movie is pretty decent: it’s moody, mildly scary (just like the book) and we search together with Meggie for the truth about her mother’s disappearance. But once we travel to Capricorn’s village, the movie repeatedly starts straying from the book. Why? There is only one possible explanation: every change has something to do with closing plotlines that were left open at the end of Tintenherz. Tintenherz is a trilogy – but Inkheart will probably never see a sequel. They made sure of that, and not just by means of making a poor movie.
In all…
I was honestly pissed off when I exited the movie theatre after seeing Tintenherz. This movie had just about everything it needed to be: a nice plot, source material that can be ported straight to the screen (it’s short and very little happens but it’s still exciting), good actors and a capable producer. But it wasn’t meant to be. And that pissed me off: bad movies are made all the time because incapable people get loads of money, but when capable people screw up like this… that pisses me off.
My oh my, is it that time of the year already? LOST’s fifth season is starting a month from now, so that means it’s time for the obligatory recap of past events and some predictions about what’s to come.
So where were we?
On the island, hopes were raised as rescue was coming. In typical LOST fashion, however, things didn’t exactly ended as planned, as the following happened: Benjamin Linus crept down a long chasm under some weird station and turned a giant frozen donkey wheel. Then came a white flash, and something disappeared.
So, yes, the island pretty much vanished. Stranded on it are Locke, Juliet, Sawyer, Charlotte and Miles. These five are the only ones of which we can be certain that they are on the island. Daniel Faraday, on the other hand, was traveling back and forth with the zodiac, rescueing losties, so he might be anywhere (even if I am quite certain he will be on the island where we want him). But… where is the island?
In another time and place, however, we move about an hour beyond the point we were left in in the season three finale. Jack returns to the funeral parlor, only to find the coffin, it’s dead inhabitant and an old rival. Off the island are: Jack, Kate, Sun, Hurley, Sayid, Desmond and Ben. Others off the island – but less important: Aaron, Frank and Walt. They all have to return to the island. Will they make it?
But let’s not forget about two other brave men. Michael and Jin! Will they make it? Or are they truly and utterly screwed?
So what is known?
Not an awful lot is known, which I love – I tend to avoid the spoilers. Here’s a little trailer for season five to get in the mood. Notice the fast sequencing of shots on the island as opposed to off the island. Because, you know, those things are that much stranger.
So where are we going?
Just like last year, I am going to write down some questions and predictions. I will formulate them in the good old “will we find out…” template, because that worked so nicely last year. So let’s get rolling!
So will we find out…
1) …how Locke ended up in the coffin? In last year’s prediction, I had almost nailed it by saying that Locke was in the coffin – but unfortunately I ended up changing it to Michael. Locke appearing in the coffin is, forme, the most interesting question to ask going into season five. Just like how Jack evolved into beared Jack: how did John Locke evolve into Jeremy Bentham? Judging by the episode titles known so far, this question should get answered.
2) …where the island ended up? When Locke uttered the words “He wants us to move the island”, I immediately suspected it would be moved in time. Could there be time loops involved? Looking at the trailer, we can see the hatch,
flaming arrows, old guns… this might hint at going back in time. But something inside me knows the answer to this question won’t be as black and white as we suspect. But I think we will get half an answer pretty
early in the season.
3) …whether everybody returns, and how? They all have to go back, but they don’t have to go there together. What if the first half of the season would be about them getting back, and the second half about them getting back together there? That being said: I wonder if the will pack their bags for the occasion? I hope the answer to this question doesn’t take an entire season – that would just be stretching it, I think. Plus: I want Sun and Jin back together!
4) …what’s up with Daniel, Charlotte and Miles? Season four introduced four wonderful characters to the show. One of them, I think, will be out of the picture (at least for a while). The other three, however, will feature prominently in the new season: fans obviously love them all to death and can’t wait to find out more. Is Charlotte a Dharma child (Annie)? Did Daniel travel through time? Is Miles looking for someone (I suspect Halliwax, who might just be his dad)? The answers to these questions should drip through in the entire season.
5) …what Sawyer whispered to Kate? Even if it seemed obvious to me – I think Sawyer asked Kate to take care of Sawyer’s daughter – I might just be entirely wrong. But we’ll see! I don’t know if this will prove important at all though.
6) …if the Losties truly ended up on the island by coincidence? This has been bothering me for quite a while. Why would they all have to go back, if they weren’t all meant to be there in the first place? I don’t think it’s an empty sentence in service of the plot – it has to have something behind it. But I don’t expect an answer to this question until the sixth season.
7) …anything about Rousseau’s expedition? We were promised the Rousseau
flashbacks over and over, time and again. And now Rousseau is dead. If the island went back in time, does that mean we will see Rousseau again and will finally get this plot point cleared up? After all, we only still have Ben’s and Rousseau’s words for it about what truly happened between them… I think we’ll find out in season five.
8) …who Jacob is? Papa Jack is Jacob! Oh wait, he’s not. He’s just someone who can speak on his behalf. Sod it. I have had it with this mysterious Jacob. He better be related to the island, or even better than that: be the island. Something for season six, probably.
9) …why Ben and Charles are fighting over the island? Season four gave us insight about the island power struggle that is obviously going on between Benjamin Linus and Charles Widmore. Is Widmore an ex-Dharma member? As far as I can see, this would be the only explanation that truly makes sense. I hope some extra hints are given.
10) …what the smoke monster is? Hahaha. Seriously? No.
Godspeed! See you soon in the first Season five review!
Hey there! Welcome to the article page – a page where I store movie analyses and essays I’ve written. This category doesn’t update as often, but it goes a bit deeper into the what and why of some stories.
In this article, I discuss how Pixar’s Monsters, Inc. takes 23 minutes set up its 82-minute feature and how the story benefits from this extreme length.
How do you top the insane success of Ratatouille? How do you top the most adorable rat, the coolest world and the best soundtrack? Insert a lovable robot, a completely empty, lonely world and fifties music. Ladies and gentlemen, Pixar has saved best for last with their latest film: Wall-E.
One bot to clean it all
The premise of the movie seems simple at first, but turns out to be deviously political as it goes along: Wall-E is a little robot given the task to clean up a deserted and dirty earth. While doing so, he runs into Eve, another robot with a mysterious task – a robot with which he soon falls in love. This is just the surface of a complex movie about a love for our planet, and an (in)evitable future in which the human race propels itself. Or you could just ignore that message altogether – then you’d have a nice, fun and stylish children’s movie. But that would obviously be a waste.
As always, Wall-E is – on one hand – chock-full of little details; but on the other hand, nothing really feels stretched or over-used. This is in part thanks to the series of miniature plots the movies progresses to: there is Wall-E’s lonely existence on earth, him meeting Eve, then discovering the space-ship Axiom and its inhabitants, and then the main plot of the movie: the plant. This is both a strength and a weakness: it has the risk of screwing with the fl
ow curve of the movie; but thankfully the nice people at Pixar have a knack for polishing something until it’s just about right. Wall-E is no exception.
Wall-E is a pearl, a diamond, the cream of the crop of the Pixar movies so far. It contains the best elements of all pixar movies: an incredibly immersive world (Ratatouille), great characters (The Incredibles), an unexpectedly creative and unconventional plot (Monsters Inc) and a great deal of extra cast members to bring comic relief (Finding Nemo). It’s like the ultimate Pixar Pudding!
In All…
I cannot stress enough how great Wall-E is. If you have not seen it, you should most definitely do so. It is a moving tale that will have sucked you in five minutes after it’s started. And you will laugh and clap like a ten year old when it does!
(Editor’s note: try reading this review aloud with a scottish accent)
The Water Horse was a movie I had wanted to see for ages now. It looked cute, genuinely scottish and with a lot of potential. Unfortunately, once the movie was over, I was filled with nothing but laughs at a flimsily executed world in an anachronistic era with piss-poor child actors – laughs which I promtly let loose on the world with the help of a “Don’t shake your baby” infomercial. What a bummer, lads. What a bummer.
Crrrrrrruusoe! Din run aweigh laddeh!
As soon as the movie starts off, you’re treated with some very nice, authentic sounding Scottish accents, accents which usually get on my nerves. This time was not an exception: the accents were so repetitive and the intonation so boring, I eyerolled every time the little lad said “Crusoe” (the name of his beloved water horse). I know Scottish people don’t actually talk in a boring and repetitive tone, so this can only mean one other thing: bad acting.
Yes, it is safe to say that there is only one good actor in the entire bunch of Scottish sounding geezers, and that is Nessy him/herself. Baptised Crusoe (after Robinson – why they didn’t pick “Robin” is beyond me; “Crusoe” in Scottish accent sounds like throwing up), she/he never ceased to impress. The little version is just awesomely cute, while the older version feels like that old tiger that never forgets. I’m seriously impressed they achieved to bring Crusoe to life, and nail it. Unfortunately, every human being that comes within three hundred meters of said beast is affected by the “horrible acting” curse. Because, you know, big creatures tend to do that to people.
What else is there to say?
I really, truly wish it wasn’t so. I really wanted to like this movie. It’s bound to be slightly silly – we’re talking the Loch Ness monster in a toilet here – but I wanted it to be… magical. And magical, it just isn’t. The actors aren’t there. The believability isn’t there. Those “present day” scenes in which the old drunk talks about his good times with the Loch Ness Monster are just corny. The whole “Loch Ness and World War II” plotline is a nice find – and the era set-up surely is credible enough – but it’s entirely ruined the moment history is attempted a recreation by mimicing the making of the famous Loch Ness Monster picture, a picture taken in the thirties. Seriously. How do you let that happen?
There are hundreds of things wrong with The Water Horse. Thankfully, the water horse itself is not one of them. If you want to see a cute creature that looks real enough and acts like a champ, you should see this movie. If you’re hoping to see anything else, just move along. Maybe you’re thinking I’m being hard on a kid-oriented movie, and I’m sure I am. But I enjoy kid’s movies. I just think all that money should’ve gone to making an actual quality movie about said monster. I don’t think it’s that hard, Laddeh.
P.S.: Once again, obvious anachronisms in movies should not happen – especially if your “making of” featurette reveals the mistake!!
By this time, you should already know about my guilty pleasure – the one other than LOST. I am obviously talking about musicals: nothing gets me going more than a wonderful musical, with great music, a wonderful setting and sublime dancing moves. We ask, and Hairspray delivers it with a motto: So delightfully wrong on so many delicious levels!
Petticoats!
Hairspray (2007) takes us back to the 1960s, where petticoats and wet looks ruled the western part of the planet, and everything seemed bright and sunny – even despite the lack of colour TV. Yes, the US of A has it made: the Kennedys are dominating the world in their popularity, and everyone in the entire world wants to be as perfect as those North-American lucky bastards. The sixties are golden, the sixties are… perfect. But what do you in such a world when you’re different? Hairspray shows us the answer: just do whatever the hell you want to do.
I can in all honesty say that it has been a while since I had seen such a feel-good movie. Ratatouille faintly comes to my mind, but it was still a different kind of happy: Hairspray made the world a better place, a shinier place, a place where everyone could live in. It completely immersed me – not only through the wonderful costumes and dances (I love the fifties) – and left me wanting more.
Flash flash!
Hairspray is a deviously cliche movie, using all the usual tactics: people singing wherever, whenever without anyone else finding it even the least bit strange; greatly exaggerated costume design (John Travolta performs as the obese mother, which is saying enough on its own) and unbelievably funny slash catchy tunes and lyrics. It does this which such great flair and in such a wonderful combination with the script, that it sometimes becomes a parody (I am thinking of the song the parents sing halfway through the movie) and sometimes an homage to soul (queen Latifah being the prime example).
If you are any bit into musicals, this is really worth 117 minutes of your time. You shall not be sorry.
Favourite Quote:
Tracy: This is just so afro-tastic!
I like The Chronicles of Narnia. There’s so many things you can throw against them: they’re really, really poorly written, the characters are somewhat lame, and last but not least there’s the annoying presence of Aslan, the great talking Lion slash metaphore for the Messiah. When he comes, the dead rise again, the blind can see and the tailless get their furry ass aspect back. I mean seriously, is there a character more annoying in literature?
Even despite my rants about Aslan – who seem to be going on and on once I start – I am reading every book (I’m almost done with The Voyage of the Dawn Treader) and I do tend to go see the movies. To, you know, see what they did and stuff. See how they made a non-epic, poorly written essay into a poorly executed epic masterpiece (in the case of the first movie). Beause here’s the deal with The Lion, the witch and the wardrobe: while the movie was enjoyable and quite magic, some of the set pieces looked flimsy and unreal, killing everything it had hoped to build.
However! It is with joy in my heart I can say that Prince Caspian has been turned into an epic movie that’s so immersive it’s actually – dare I say it – exciting. If, of course, you can forgive them for the first half. You know, the half that was in the book?
Losing Faith
C.S. Lewis’s Prince Caspian is all about doubt and losing faith. This theme was carried over nicely from the books – in fact, it was even enhanced. While the book doesn’t really invest in the children’s psychologies that much, the movie does: Peter’s struggle in faith becomes more of a manly feeling: we can see him giving up hope in Aslan – even though it pains him to do so – and trying to do things the manly way: on his own. Susan’s losing faith has more to do with her interest in the other sex – even though it was carried out a bit too much, I feel – and once again, we could feel the pain it caused her. It was part of growing up.
Lewis never used this approach in this book – in a way, it appears to me that Lewis was underestimating his core public (children) and making the story as straight forward as possible, hoping they would learn something incidentally along the way. The movie takes the viewer more seriously, and hopes they will understand the normal struggles the oldest Pevensies are going through. This not only makes those two Pevensies more interesting, it also makes the viewer long for Aslan’s coming to set things right. Which, in turn, makes Aslan a less annoying character for me.
Poor, poor Edmund
So Susan and Peter became more interesting. That’s good: the only interesting Pevensie in the book obviously was Lucy, seeing how she was always right all along. This leaves us with Edmund, who seems to be the shadow side of the bargain: while the script develops Susan and Peter, it leaves dear little Edmund standing in the cold. This is a point where the book shone: we could see Edmund making up with Lucy for the grief he caused her back in the Lion, the witch and the wardrobe. In the movie, this was one sentence – after which Edmund was reduced to comic relief and the necessary two-three sentences for continuity’s sake. What a shame.
In a way, this is perfectly reasonable on behalf of the scriptwriters: Susan and Peter’s big role in the Narnian Chronicles is over, while Lucy and Edmund will be seen again in a later story. In a way, I also had the same feeling about Caspian: there’s a lot more to be told about his psychology. Maybe they’ll leave this for the next movie as well?
135 Minutes
All this psychologizing makes this movie so much better. It also makes it perfectly reasonable that the movie is 135 minutes long. Before the movie started, I wondered how hard it could be to turn a 100 page novel into a 90 minute feature. You wouldn’t even have to cut that much – just dust out the fluff and you have yourself a movie script. What I hadn’t expected, however, was for them to add things like I mentioned before. Obviously the (poorly written) battle scenes would have to be at least fifteen minutes each and contain extra elements, but adding character development to a movie where there was practically none? That was a bold move. A bold move which succeeded and only once broke the Narnian continuity (Seriously – Caspian and Susan?! I see where you’re taking this, but STILL.). A bold move which made the movie a bit longer than it should have (at certain times I was hoping for it to get on with it quickly) but better than my idea of having a shorter feature with no additions.
In all…
Is Prince Caspian better than the Lion, the witch and the wardrobe? In my opinion, it is. Granted, Prince Caspian is less magical – but if you hold that against the movie, you’re not giving the stories themselves a fair treatment. Prince Caspian – the book – is a darker story, a harder story, a story with less magic but more punch. That’s also the way this movie is. On the other hand, it’s so much more interesting than they made the first movie. There is so much more stuffing in this turkey, making it taste so much better!
Oh, and there’s no rocks that looked like styrofoam. Seriously, for those praising the production values of the first movie, you really oughta watch it again. It is a good movie, but I can never unsee those rough edges. Ever!
Favourite Quote:
Lucy: I wish you would all stop trying to sound like grown-ups! I didn’t think I saw him, I did see him.
Trumpkin: I… *am* a grown-up.
When I first read that they’d honour Heath Ledger pusthumously for playing The Joker in The Dark Knight, I frowned. Sure, Heath Ledger’s a wonderful actor and undoubtedly he went before his time, but oscar talk before a movie gets released? That’s pushing it a bit, in my opinion. Boy was I wrong: after having seen this movie, not only am I sure that Heath Ledger deserves this oscar, I actually believe he will get it.
The Dark Knight is not your average “Iron Man” superhero movie – all about special effects and GLORIOUS METAL MUSIC playing in the background while people in shiny armour fly around the screen spouting one-liners. In fact, The Dark Knight is nothing like that, in so far that it actually starts to feel very unlike a superhero movie at all. We get offered a dark story about a normal person who happens to wear a latex suit, and we get it with such sense of realism that Gotham City doesn’t quite seem like Gotham City, but like New York. Christopher Nolan did a superb job at making this city one of “our very own”. It all seems very, very real – even the two featured villains get a realistic overhaul, in which for one less is more (the case for The Joker) and one where more psychology… is indeed more as well (Two-Face).
Which brings us to the inevitable point every Dark Knight review has to tackle: Heath Ledger as The Joker. While The Dark Knight undoubtedly is a superb movie, Heath Ledger makes is an even better one: his way of acting out this psychotic madman, aided of course by the wonderful script, is the best thing since Hannibal. He takes the Joker and lifts it up beyond what we know and love about The Joker and delivers an unforgettable experience on his own. I immediately felt intrigued by this Joker, whereas this character never intrigued me before. The poorly done make-up, the greasy hair, the rolling of the tongue, the psychotic laugh that always sounds different… You kind of get the impression Heath Ledger isn’t acting anymore, that he became his role. Which is kind of scary, considering the man’s dead.
Behind this stellar performance (ever second of Joker time is simply breathtaking), it’s easy to forget about those “other actors”. Like Batman himself. Christopher Bale once again brings us a solid, two-faced batman: on the one hand there’s the careless spender called Bruce Wayne, on the other hand there’s Batman who is torn apart by insecurity. This typical superhero complex gets done really well in The Dark Knight, once again due to brilliant acting and a great script. Harvey Dent, also known as Two-Face, is also performed wonderfully by Aaron Eckhart, who can be seen slowly sinking down the abyss and being confronted by the limits of his own sense of justice. Great acting performances, aided by a superb script.
That last sentence pretty much sums it all up: this is a terrific movie where every little piece (Heath Ledger, Christopher Bale, Aaron Eckhard, Morgan Freeman…) is really good, but where the script is the one thing that makes the experience complete. Where Batman Begins felt like a superhero movie, The Dark Knight feels like a really good action drama. I can’t quite pin down where the difference between the two lie – “silly superhero” elements like the Batmobile or the Batsuit feature in both films – but you can sense it the moment the movie starts: this is something else, this is something really, really good. Maybe it’s the continuous testing of the border between good and evil that does it?
Favourite Quote: The Joker: Come on, I want you to do it, I want you to do it. Come on, hit me. *Hit me!*
You’re a fan, or you’re no fan. As far as LOST goes, I am a fan: I faithfully watch the episodes over and over looking for clues, write stupid reviews that rave on and on about the tiniest little things, I listen to the podcasts and actually enjoy the jokes about the wooden leg… so naturally, I got the LOST videogame, which goes by the name of LOST: Via Domus – a poor excuse for pig latin. How could they not get that right?! In fact – this question isn’t just valid for the title, but for the majority of the game and its handling of the reasons why a fan would buy it.
Cross-medial Copying
It is my opinion that TV series, as a format, are easy to transfer to a video game. Way easier than a film, to say the least, because how do you copy a two hour flick into an interactive experience that lasts about ten hours? In this event, the LOST videogame did just about everything right: they made a sidestory that spans over the course of the first two LOST seasons. This side story is told to us in seven different chapters, or episodes, each complete with its own “Previously on LOST”, a title screen and the ending screen. So it really does play like a television series. Using episodes also makes it easier for us to keep track of the story – middle parts of epic game experiences can sometimes drag alone a bit; it’s nice to see a cliffhanger at the end of every 30-40 minutes of gameplay to keep you motivated. In this way, LOST: Via Domus gets the job done. You just play “next to” the series, following great turning points as they go along (e.g. the opening of the hatch) and interacting with the Losties.
And that’s where it kind of goes wrong.
First off: let me say kudos to the production team for pulling this off. Some actors from the show decided they would help out and voice their characters (Claire, Desmond, Ben…). Absent from the list, however, were Jack and Locke, amongst others. So they had to get replacements. And while the replacements do sound like the real deal, you can just feel they’re not the real deal. And, however hard Ubisoft and abc studios may have tried to fix this gap, to the (extremely picky) LOST fans, they just fall short. On top of that, the characters just look plain awful – Locke looks too skinny and young, Jack looks like a walking zombie, Claire looks like a molten Barbie doll… It’s crazy and freaky.
Illusion ruined! Or not?
Thank God, we have the creative team behind LOST to help us out. They delivered us with a good, not great, story – carefully making sure not to break any LOST dogmas along the way – that kept me interested throughout the experience. In each of the seven episodes, there are several flashbacks in which we find out more about our main character: why he was in Syndey, who he was there with and what he was doing. This past takes a few very dark turns that apparently caused some players to detach themselves from the main character. It quickly became apparent, however, that in true LOST fashion, this story was going to be about a lost soul looking for the right path: redemption. In this way, the story was good enough. Not great, but good enough.
On top of that, the surroundings were also decent. They ranged from sub-par (the crash site looked horrible) to wonderfully detailed (like the jungle and the Black Rock). It’s nice to finally walk around the hatch, and do all those crazy things the Losties did, like typing in the numbers, hiding from the monster and getting dynamite from the Black Rock. So, for fans – if you can look at the already mentioned disappointments – this kind of stuff is pretty cool.
Questions, questions, questions
So, given the fact that LOST: Via Domus is a mixed bag, should you play it? If you’re not a fan of the series, I don’t see why you should. If you are, however, it’s worth it for the few crazy, mindboggling plot twists alone. The ending to this one leaves you scratching your head, much in a way a season finale does. For that alone, it’s worth the few hours of “video game” before that. It just goes to show that LOST is what LOST does best: telling us a story, making us shut up and look at the pretty pictures.
