Will There Be Anyone Left in LOST?

This week's Entertainment Weekly reports that Michael Emerson (Benjamin Linus) predicts that LOST the future of the show in this statement to EW "I don't think LOST will have a happy ending. I think we are going to start seeing more casualties. I would put money on major characters being killed. I believe it will be a sad ending to the show-or at least bittersweet. I think it will definitely be a season finale for grown-ups," I personally never expected LOST to have a touchy-feel good ending. However, I didn't expect to see major characters go down the way Emerson is predicting. I do feel that they can't end the show the way Jack's character and crew are pushing for: Blowing up the island w/ the hydrogen bomb so that they never crash the plane. C'mon, if it ends that way, the last scene being flash back to 2004 with everyone on Flight 815 landing safely in LA after successfully blowing up the island in 1977 (ish?) there will be backlash from the fans. And the writers know that so I really don't think it's going to have that happy ending. No more than I think it's going to end with it all being Hurley's psychotic play in his head. But rather than major loss in characters, I expected the players to come full circle in their individual quests for redemption. While most of the characters that have found theirs have died, it seemed that with Kate and Jack, Sawyer and Juliet, Jin and Sun there may be something found in the pairing that would keep them from biting the bullet. The season finale mixed with rumors of Elizabeth Mitchell starring in her own show fuels speculation that Juliet will be the "major character" to die, but with a show like Lost, we are always left guessing if they who die really die. Or those who rise from the dead, as in Locke's case, really live? Locke, as we are to believe, has been reincarnated to convince Ben to kill Jacob. There was another major character (albeit a "silent unseen" character until his debut and death) that met the end.

So who is going to be left standing in Lost, if Emerson's predictions are correct? I can't see EVERYONE kicking the bucket just as I can't see EVERYONE landing in LA on that big ole' jet airliner Flight 815. So let's assume Juliet is dead and Jacob is dead. My prediction for next to go would be Sayid, as he seems to be kinda nuts now since working for Ben, being betrayed by Ben, jumping back in time and trying to kill young Ben and failing, he seems to have nothing left to live for. Then again, if Juliet is really dead, where does that leave (gulp) Sawyer? I really hate to bring him into this, as most of you know, I'm a Skater. (Sawyer and Kate as apposed to a Jater, Jack and Kate fan) And I am a huge fan of Sawyer and how far he's come in this show. However, I think he's gotten a little too soft for me this last season, so if Juliet did die, either the softie in him will win and he will become just plain pathetic and possibly meet his demise in a state of weakness, OR he will go the exact opposite, go back to the old Sawyer, and get real vengeful on everyone's @** till he does something stupid and rash and gets offed. My vote is to see him in the Season Finale with some beautiful chick from the Midwest that writes blogs about....I digress.
Moving along. Jack- Well, I know he is the leader, the "Shepard" but I'm really indifferent. I don't know what it is about Jack but he's annoys me. I think it's because I feel like if Charlie from Party of Five grew up to be a Dr. and his parent's hadn't have died and he didn't have all those brothers and sisters and his name was Jack instead...Yeah...It's like the situations are different but the characters are too similar for me to really dig Jack. Christian, however, I can't wait to see how that is summed up.

Hurley could be an "easy-off" as I like to term it. It's my blog I'll use my own verbiage. He seems to have disappeared into the background somewhat over teh last season or two, but is still a fan fav (much like Charlie, sniff...sniff...still miss you!) so it would get the sentimental shock value. I don't think Sun and Jin could be (it's Lost, I know, anything is possible) because I think we are working too hard on this story to get them back to the same time and why they are in different time periods anyway? But wouldn't that be a real killer, we wait for them to get in the same time dimension and after all that agonizing over if it's going to happen, one of
'em dies?

Kate, to me, is very up in the air. Her character, as it stands, could go either way, with Jack or with Sawyer, dependent on what really happens to Juliet. With Juliet out of the picture, with the obvious tension between Kate and Sawyer turn to something more? Will get back together with Jack? Or go back to her renegade con girl ways? To me, she has the most "options" of which way her story will go, so she seems the strongest candidate to see the show thru to the finish line. Which means....Nothing because Lost is known for it's curveballs.

Live together die alone, either way there are so many unanswered questions still out there, so many possibilities of the fate of each character, and undoubtedly a thrilling final season to come. Can't wait!!

Angels&Demons&Darwin Oh my!

Angels and Demons or The Darwin Conspiracy

I know there was a ton of media surrounding the release of Angels and Demons. That is usually enought to send me in search of entertainment elsewhere. I did, however, venture to read Angels and Demons by Dan Brown as historical fiction is one of, if not my very favorite genre. It didn't let me down; I felt Langdon's excitement while reading through the archives of the Vatican (hey, I'm a dork, nothing gets me quite as excited as dusty old papers) I was captivated along with Langdon as we were trying to solve the puzzle before the time ran out and....yup Ewan Mcgregor ends up the bad guy. Ok, I haven't SEEN the movie, but something about the previews was enough to give this away to me the whole time I was reading the book. And that's just from reading the book, I can't imagine the disappointment seeing it. Did anyone else, or is this just me, totally get that from the previews? It didn't make the book any less enjoyable, but since the movies undoubtedly always lack some of the magic the book offers, and the previews seemed to give the movie away, what's the point of watching??




After I finished this book I wanted something along those same lines...some history woven in with the fabricated storylines. I was on my way out after a frenzied stop at Barnes and Noble
-side note, by frenized I mean this: Have you ever seen a crowd of women at a shoe sale, or the day after Thanksgiving in line for the must-have-toy-of-the-season, that crazed, possessed look they take on? That's kinda me around books-stores, sales, what have you. If you see me in Barnes and Noble, it's probably safest to stay back 50 feet)
-I digress...On my way out with my two big bags I pass the "last chance" bins I'd missed on my way in. I had intended on a historical fiction, as I stated earlier, but Charlaine Harris' latest book had come out, I found a few other things I'd been meaning to check out, etc. So lying out to the side was this book called The Darwin Consiracy by John Darnton. Something in the wording "based on exhaustive research" piqued my interest. I started immediately. The first few pages, which aways determine to me how long it's going to take to finish a book and how engaged I will be in that process (alas, I have several I have started that I haven't finished, but dear reader, it is my life goal to finish everything I start) The first few pages were rocky, at best. Granted, I had very limited knowledge of Darwin. Ok, by very limited I mean next to nothing. I am not a huge fan of science. However, Angels and Demons had that theme of Religion and Science running over and over, so it had somewhat aroused a bit of interest.

Birds? This guys on this island measuring bird beaks? Really? What did I get here? It was a rough start. I sat the book down for several days. i had all but moved on with my life, ready to conquer the next book, when I had this nagging suspicion I had given up to easy. I went back and forced myself thru the first chapter or so, when I realized that there was a great story blossoming. Jumping between the present historian, the journals of Liza, Darwin's daughter, and Darwin's experience on the Beagle, a historical mystery unfolds. Not since The Historian by Elizabeth Kostova had I been so delighted at the outcome. The story weaves around, back and forth, and comes together at the end leaving the reader, or at least myself, satisfied. It's like a little "thank you" for hanging in on those first few rough pages.

Perhaps it's because of all the HYPE surrounding Angels and Demons, perhaps its that I knew how it was going to end before I started reading it, perhaps it was something in the unknown world of Darwin that got me, but for my money, The Darwin Conspiracy wins hands down.

5000 Year Leap by Skousen-Drifting Away from the Constitution and the Founders Dreams

For those of you that have read my previous blogs related to Glenn Beck's Project 912, I've briefly mentioned the book The 5000 Year Leap by W. Cleon Skousen, which is a book Beck's recommended several times. I finally got the book and dove right in. One of the things that first struck me was in the introduction. The "student" mentions that Skousen passed away in 2006. This book, even in it's newest edition, was before the collapse of Wall Street, the days of bail-outs and pork, and prior to the historic election. I mention this because this book isn't about left wing or right wing agendas. It isn't bashing what's going on in the political scene today, because the author was gone before the walls came tumbling down. This isn't a book for Republicans or Democrats. It's a book for Americans. It goes over the 28 Principles the nation was founded on, with background information, direct quotes, and an unbiased modern-day description of what these principles mean, both yesterday and today.

In reading just the first chapter, I was struck by how dead-on the founder's predictions of the possible-future were. I say "possible" because, unlike some people, I don't believe the United States was doomed to fail. I don't believe that the principles the country were founded on could only hold for so long. I believe if we stuck closer to the Constitution and the origins of this nation, we'd be in a better place today. Again, this book was written before the major issues we've experienced in the past few months. Yet, here's something I found fitting for today: "..the Founders warned against a number of temptations which might lure subsequent generations to abandon their freedoms and their rights by subjecting themselves to strong federal administration operating on the collectivist Left. They warned against the 'welfare state' where the governent endeavors to take care of everyone from the cradle to the grave. Jefferson wrote: 'If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people, under the pretense of taking care of them, they must become happy'" (Skousen, 29)

Hmm...Sound like anything going on in our country now? How bout this: "They warned against confiscatory taxation and deficit spending. Jefferson said it was immoral for one generation to pass on the results of its extravagance in the form of debts to the next generation. He wrote: '...we shall all consider ourselves unauthorized to saddle posterity with our debts, and morally bound to pay them ourselves; and consequently within what may be deemed the period of a generation, or the life (expectancy) of the majority'" (Skousen, 29)

Too bad that's not the case now. Blame Bush, blame Clinton, blame Reagan, blame it back as far as you wanna go, it is what it is now. How do we keep it from affecting the next generation as Jefferson said? April 15th-here we come!!

Here's another interesting tidbit from Sam Adams, on the point of communism and socialism: "The Utopian schemes of leveling (re-distribution of the wealth) and a community of goods (central ownership of the means of production nand distribution) are as visionary and impractical as those which vest all property in the Crown. (these ideas) are arbitrary, despotic, and, in our government, unconstitutional." (Skousen, 30 from The Life and Public Services of Samuel Adams by William V. Wells)




Amazing,within just a few pages how these 3 quotes hit the nail on the head with what's going on in our country today, the latter with what many feel is brewing. It's like one scenario leads into the next situation facing our nation. We were in a bad spot, we wanted change, we voted (not me personally, of course!) for that change, took the consequences that went with it, are now in the most troublesome of economic situations, and shifting towards what many believe is a communist state. Founding Fathers or Pyschics? You be the judge.



It's scarier and scarier everday, as the government seems to get in bed with big business everytime you look around. And the "schemes of leveling"...is it just me or does it seem as though capitalism has taken a backseat to equal oppportunity? The Founders talk a great deal about people giving up their individual freedoms in times of woe, (like now) to turn to a leader that will lean toward this "common good" approach (like now) to help level the playing field. I'm all for everyone being happy, don't get me wrong, but I think every American has the right to the PURSUIT of happiness, not that it should just be a God given right. Speaking of God, in my next blog, we'll get into the Founder's view on religion in contrast to the current un-PC world we live in today....

i <3 Luke Wilson OR My (kind of) Critical Approach to "Old School"

One of my fav actors is Luke Wilson, 1/2 the duo of the Wilson Bros (wasn't there a Wilson sisters...oh wait, that was a band =) I remember watching Bottle Rockets in high school, when it first came out, after scouring the Family Video for a movie no one had ever heard of. Yes, I was that kid; a movie/music elitist-I wanted stuff no one had ever heard of, I was an anti-Dawson Creek pro-Clockwork Orange freak, and proud of it. I digress.
So I watch this movie and instantaneously fall in love with Luke Wilson. From there, my love blossomed. Enter early 20's (I'm not so anti-mainstream pro-indie as I once was, I realize it only matters what's GOOD, not what's arcane) and one of my favorite Luke movies: Old School. First of all, the movie's hilarious. Everytime I see it, I crave KFC and Will Ferrell. (does that make me sick?) I love how he plays the rejected bf of Juliette Lewis, b/c Juliette Lewis in and of herself is just strange to me-not someone I'd picture for the role, but perfect nonetheless. As the unwilling cohort to Vince Vaughn and Will Ferrell's characters, Wilson represents the typical post-breakup male. He rehashes the good ole' times with his buddies till he eventually slips into his pre-relationship days of party boy (of course, I'm only assuming this as a.) movie starts with him in a relationship and b.) it's a movie, I'll make up whatever prequel I want.) Back into the days of drinking and debauchery, as I was saying, with his boys-although he takes it one step further than most post-breakup-early-to-mid-thirtysomethings: he becomes the Godfather. The Godfather of a fraternity of mostly fake students. I don't think most of us, male or female, take it that far but hey-I'm only 26-who's to say in that situation at that time of my life I wouldn't do the same thing in a sorority setting. I like his role in this movie because he is seen as the most level headed of all the guys, drawn to this only because he is lost without her, and at a loss of residence as well.
On quite the opposite end of the spectrum, there's my other fav Luke Wilson movie, Family Stone. This is a comedy of sorts, but much more serious than Old School. To his more straight laced character in the moreover comedy, in Family Stone he plays the free-spirited fun loving brother. (hmm...sounds more like every role HIS brother's ever played) I think this is my other fav because the roles are such polar opposite. In this, slacker boy with no apparent agenda ends up with the girl, (he always gets the girl, right? Paging Dr. Grey!) but in this movie Sarah Jessica Parker, said girl, plays a role we are more used to seeing Luke play-a bit uptight-afraid to be or put herself out there (Or let her "freak flag fly") I love the range in the 2 characters. Luke Wilson may not be up there with your Brad Pitt's and your Tom Hanks for width in roles they can play, but I think these two movies give him a bit of flexibility to show what range he has, and let his freak flag fly. Can't wait to see Henry Poole!

My Bloody Valentine 3d

My step-mom isn't the conspiracy theorist in the household. However, she holds it's a conspiracy to get patrons to the movie-this new wave of 3D flicks. I'd disagree, but I am the epitome of sucker when it comes to 3D. I went to see Coraline, which, by nature is not a movie I'd get exciting about going to. The 3D effects were what roped me in. The last movie I'd be to before that was Twilight (duh!) and before that I can't even remember. Point being-I hate spending 20 bucks on 2 hours worth of entertainment. So yeah, the 3D does have that appeal that waiting for it to come out of video doesn't. I mean, unless you get one of those fancy 3D monitors, and then they'll be no reason to go to the theatre anymore. Unless of course it's for a Twilight movie.

About a month after Coraline, and about 5 or 6 months earlier than I'd normally go to the theatre again, I went to see My Bloody Valentine. I'm normally not a blood-guts-gore type of girl; my fav "horror" flick in Skeleton Key, and that probably falls closer to pyschological/thriller than horror. But, hey, it was 3D so I had to see what it was all about.

I love getting into the theatre, finding your seat amongst the other Buddy Holly look-alikes, and donning those ridiculous glasses, in case, just in case, a preview may be in 3D (note: Coraline-yes, previews in 3D. MBV-nada. Very disappointing.) When the movie started, there were a few simple, grab-your-attention 3D effects. And then it went down hill as far as effects go. There were may 2 other instances I can think of that they really played on the 3D, and other than that it fell short in that arena.

Aside from it's "WB hasbeens" cast, I did enjoy the eye candy provided thru the character of Tom Harringer, played by Jensen Ackles. Of course, he's included in the WB cast-from Supernatural to Smallville, and as far back as Dawson's Creek. I, not being a fan of anything on the WB or CW as it's now called apparently, had never seen him in anything before. Pleasantly surprised, I wish I could have said the same about the other Dawson Creek alum, Kerr Smith. Inside of a cop, I felt like he was an actor playing a cop. It seemed forced and awkward. Of course, again, not a fan of slasher movies,so maybe there are supposed to be like that? I hope so.

Bad acting aside, the movie was enjoyable. There were nice "light" scenes (IE the midget and her dog) plenty to look at on screen (Jensen sure can rock a pick-axe) and enough gore to last me till Quentin Tarantino's next flick. I haven't seen the original, so if anyone wants to add to this, feel free to comment.