Project 52: 3/52
Easily the best movie from 2005 that I own - and it turns out I own a lot of movies released in that year - this is the black-and-white movie portraying Ed Murrow's fight against Senator Joe McCarthy during the 1950's. I say this now without watching George Clooney's other 2005 feature, Syriana, but I'm confident it will hold up.
The movie is beautifully shot - can you imagine if it was released in colour? It would be even more visually striking. As it is, it works even better mixed with the historical footage from actual McCarthy hearings.
What I especially like about this film is that it portrays the people actually acting like real people. I think some might find that distracting and consider the film boring, but it adds a level of realism to a fantastic biopic.
I really don't have much more to write about it than that...but I just had to get it out there. If you haven't seen it before, go check it out now!
Sunday, February 17, 2013
Saturday, February 9, 2013
CD Reviews - 54-40 - Dear Dear (1992)
Project 52: 2/52
In the interest of writing something every week, I picked an easy subject: album reviews. But there's a twist; I recently spent time putting my CD collection back into their cases.
You see, several years ago when I moved to Sudbury, I had to move all of my CDs into a binder so that they were more portable. Until just a few nights ago, they stayed that way. Now they're back in their cases, and alphabetised. Now I can re-visit them in alphabetical order and write about them.
First up is 54-40's 1992 album, "Dear Dear". For the life of me I can't remember why I bought this album; was it for "She-La"? For "Nice To Luv You"? Probably the first one. Either way, "Dear Dear" is a fairly bland alternative rock album that hardly kept my attention the whole way through. Sorry, 54-40 fans.
There is one track that did work for me, though. Strangely enough, it's not one of the official singles - which is not surprising when I think about it. What were the singles? The two I listed above, I think. Prime examples of the bland, inoffensive nature of the album.
The track I enjoyed was "You Don't Get Away (That Easy)". It has a few more layers to it and is overall much more interesting than any of the other songs on the album.
In short, if I were to downsize my collection (and that is a distinct possibility), 54-40's "Dear Dear" would be the first in the Value Village box.
Up next: Aerosmith - Honkin' On Bobo (2004); The Acorn - Tin Fist (2006); Herb Alpert - Definitive Hits (2001)
In the interest of writing something every week, I picked an easy subject: album reviews. But there's a twist; I recently spent time putting my CD collection back into their cases.
You see, several years ago when I moved to Sudbury, I had to move all of my CDs into a binder so that they were more portable. Until just a few nights ago, they stayed that way. Now they're back in their cases, and alphabetised. Now I can re-visit them in alphabetical order and write about them.
First up is 54-40's 1992 album, "Dear Dear". For the life of me I can't remember why I bought this album; was it for "She-La"? For "Nice To Luv You"? Probably the first one. Either way, "Dear Dear" is a fairly bland alternative rock album that hardly kept my attention the whole way through. Sorry, 54-40 fans.
There is one track that did work for me, though. Strangely enough, it's not one of the official singles - which is not surprising when I think about it. What were the singles? The two I listed above, I think. Prime examples of the bland, inoffensive nature of the album.
The track I enjoyed was "You Don't Get Away (That Easy)". It has a few more layers to it and is overall much more interesting than any of the other songs on the album.
In short, if I were to downsize my collection (and that is a distinct possibility), 54-40's "Dear Dear" would be the first in the Value Village box.
Up next: Aerosmith - Honkin' On Bobo (2004); The Acorn - Tin Fist (2006); Herb Alpert - Definitive Hits (2001)
Wednesday, January 30, 2013
Project 52
The common yearly project upon which most people embark is what's known as a "Project 365". If you're not familiar with the concept, the basic idea is that you do something every day of the year: take a photo, read a book (yes, I've heard of people trying this), and so forth. The other variant is "52": the same idea, but replace every day with every week.
This is the project I will be undertaking for 2013; for 52 weeks, I will write at least one thing per week. I'm not concerned with the actual content of what I write (for instance, this totally counts), just that I write minimally once per week.
I will hold myself accountable by just posting everything here. If it pertains to this blog it will be an article here; otherwise you'll get a link to the content.
I realize that we're already 5 weeks into the year, which means I will need to catch up. So there should be at least 5 weeks with double posts. Theoretically.
This project is inspired by The No Format Podcast and the great Ira Glass.
[Fun fact! I'm typing this on my Android phone using the "Hacker's Keyboard". I mistyped "per" as "oer", which was automatically corrected to o'er. What a great phone!]
Saturday, September 1, 2012
My All-Time Movies List
For some reason, I found myself thinking about the movies I watched over and over as a kid; the movies that, no matter how many times I'd seen them, I could always pop in when I was bored. These are the movies that I watched when I was sick; when I was home all summer; on weekends. These are the movies that I want my kids (when I have them) to watch as they grow up.
The movies aren't in any particular order - I just listed them as they came to mind. Most of these movies were recorded from TV, and were watched complete with glorious '80s commercials.
Back to the Future
What can I say about this movie? What can I say about any of them? As kids, we watched this from a VHS tape, recorded from some TV channel I can't remember. I should point out that I'm referring primarily to the first movie, not the entire trilogy. We never had Part II or III on tape, but we watched the hell out of the first one. It's an easy plot for a kid to wrap his head around.
The Star Wars Trilogy (1977-1983)
The unfortunate thing about this trilogy is that I'm unlikely to ever find copies of the original, unedited versions (without going on eBay finding the DVD copies that were released a few years ago with the original theatrical versions) in high definition, because this is how I grew up watching them. I think that I would definitely want to show my kids these versions, and I'll do my best to make sure that happens. I think there's a lot to be said for using physical special effects instead of computer generated crap.
The Karate Kid Part I and II
This one's a funny one for me; I remember watching both of these movies quite a bit - mostly the first one - but I really prefer the second one. The problem is, our copy of the second one got messed up in the recording. Oh well!
Bigfoot
This is an obscure one, and I've never seen it available in any media ever, anywhere, except our one VHS tape that we recorded from TV. There are probably a dozen movies by the same name, but in this case I'm talking about the 1987 made-for-TV film starring Candice Cameron Bure. Yes, starring DJ from Full House. I think the only other bigger stars in that movie were Colleen Dewhurst and Joseph Maher. Have you even heard of them? Yeah, exactly. Okay, actually, the father, James Sloyan, appeared in a few Star Trek episodes (TNG, DS9, Voyager), so there's at least one "famous" character actor in it too. Look, it's a great movie, and you should watch it.
The Great Muppet Caper + A Muppet Family Christmas
I think my favourite of these two is The Great Muppet Caper, but both are excellent films (the latter is made-for-TV I think) that showcase The Muppets at the height of their amazing-ness. While last year's The Muppets was great, I don't think it can ever top The Great Muppet Caper - even though it may have matched it in tone at least.
Ghostbusters
Another of the great '80s films, I probably watched this one just as much as the Star Wars movies.
I'm sure there are more that I'm forgetting, and likely will come to mind after I hit "Publish". But if I only remember these movies, that's still one pretty great list to show my kids. There's only one modern movie I can think of that I would add to this list - and it's Moneyball. It seems like a strange choice, but I just finished watching it for the umpteenth time, and I'll likely watch it again and again. It's become one of those movies, like those listed above.
I didn't really have much of a point to this post, just stuff I wanted to share. Got any movies that you watched over and over in your childhood? I'd be interested to see what any '90s kids watched too.
The movies aren't in any particular order - I just listed them as they came to mind. Most of these movies were recorded from TV, and were watched complete with glorious '80s commercials.
Back to the Future
What can I say about this movie? What can I say about any of them? As kids, we watched this from a VHS tape, recorded from some TV channel I can't remember. I should point out that I'm referring primarily to the first movie, not the entire trilogy. We never had Part II or III on tape, but we watched the hell out of the first one. It's an easy plot for a kid to wrap his head around.
The Star Wars Trilogy (1977-1983)
The unfortunate thing about this trilogy is that I'm unlikely to ever find copies of the original, unedited versions (without going on eBay finding the DVD copies that were released a few years ago with the original theatrical versions) in high definition, because this is how I grew up watching them. I think that I would definitely want to show my kids these versions, and I'll do my best to make sure that happens. I think there's a lot to be said for using physical special effects instead of computer generated crap.
The Karate Kid Part I and II
This one's a funny one for me; I remember watching both of these movies quite a bit - mostly the first one - but I really prefer the second one. The problem is, our copy of the second one got messed up in the recording. Oh well!
Bigfoot
This is an obscure one, and I've never seen it available in any media ever, anywhere, except our one VHS tape that we recorded from TV. There are probably a dozen movies by the same name, but in this case I'm talking about the 1987 made-for-TV film starring Candice Cameron Bure. Yes, starring DJ from Full House. I think the only other bigger stars in that movie were Colleen Dewhurst and Joseph Maher. Have you even heard of them? Yeah, exactly. Okay, actually, the father, James Sloyan, appeared in a few Star Trek episodes (TNG, DS9, Voyager), so there's at least one "famous" character actor in it too. Look, it's a great movie, and you should watch it.
The Great Muppet Caper + A Muppet Family Christmas
I think my favourite of these two is The Great Muppet Caper, but both are excellent films (the latter is made-for-TV I think) that showcase The Muppets at the height of their amazing-ness. While last year's The Muppets was great, I don't think it can ever top The Great Muppet Caper - even though it may have matched it in tone at least.
Ghostbusters
Another of the great '80s films, I probably watched this one just as much as the Star Wars movies.
I'm sure there are more that I'm forgetting, and likely will come to mind after I hit "Publish". But if I only remember these movies, that's still one pretty great list to show my kids. There's only one modern movie I can think of that I would add to this list - and it's Moneyball. It seems like a strange choice, but I just finished watching it for the umpteenth time, and I'll likely watch it again and again. It's become one of those movies, like those listed above.
I didn't really have much of a point to this post, just stuff I wanted to share. Got any movies that you watched over and over in your childhood? I'd be interested to see what any '90s kids watched too.
Thursday, August 23, 2012
Is Fight Club Ruined by Spoilers?
Please note that this post will have spoilers in it - and even though I'm talking about a movie that is more than a decade old, this probably still matters to somebody out there.
Okay, that's out of the way; I can get on with this quasi-review. This week, I both read and watched Fight Club for the first time. I'd seen the first 20 minutes of Fight Club when I was in High School, but never finished the movie. I'm sure most of my readers have seen this shirt before*, so it should come as no surprise that I knew of the major twist at the end of the movie.
My question then is: did knowing this spoiler ruin the movie for me? For that matter, do spoilers in general ruin stories at all?
First, I think I should mention that while I read the book before watching the film, I'm going to concentrate on talking about the film - most people haven't read the book anyway, I assume. I should also assert that the simple fact of knowing that the narrator is Tyler Durden DID colour my viewing experience.
While I was watching, I was looking for all the clues that point to Ed Norton really being Tyler Durden. You know what? There are a lot of clues, starting with one of the opening lines: "I know this, because Tyler knows this." There's also an almost throw-away scene on a city bus where a passenger knocks into Norton, and not Tyler. All the references to sleep - the narrator never knows if he's awake or asleep; Tyler disappearing when Marla shows up; the subtle camera angles when both Tyler and Nortn are supposedly in the same room that only shows one or the other.**
These clues are fairly subtle, and I'm not sure that I would have noticed all of them had I not known the big secret at the end. These are clues that I would have definitely picked up on during a second viewing of the movie. Honestly, as much as I enjoyed the film, I don't think I would watch it again. In a way, this was my second viewing.
In this instance - just this particular case - I believe the spoiler did ruin the movie for me. But not because of someone else telling me the secret; I would have only watched it a second time anyway, no more. What may have been ruined was the whole "my mind is blown" moment, but I'm not too concerned about that. I can tell you what wasn't ruined: how I enjoyed the film.
Yes, the joy of discovering the truth about Tyler Durden was taken away from me, but instead I had fun picking out those "Aha!" moments that I mentioned earlier. You know what? I probably even missed more than what I mentioned, and could find more on a second viewing. So to answer my initial question, Fight Club was NOT ruined for me because I knew the story's secret.
But what about in general - are stories really ruined by spoilers? Most of the time a spoiler is just one small tidbit of information, and in no way affects the rest of it. I knew that Snape Kills Dumbledore, but I didn't know the Snape was the Half-Blood Prince (sorry). While I'm not presenting very much evidence in support of my theory, I think my stance here is fairly obvious. Spoilers don't ruin anything beyond a brief surprise at the end of it all.
* I'm not a fan of the wording of "Tyler Durden isn't real". While it gets the point across, I'd very much argue that Tyler Durden is very, very real in Fight Club.
** I really appreciated the way these clues were pulled off. Also the fact that the writers/director didn't feel it necessary to go back to each instance and hit us over the head with it, as many other entries into pop culture dealing with an imaginary person do (*cough*Dexter*cough*).
Okay, that's out of the way; I can get on with this quasi-review. This week, I both read and watched Fight Club for the first time. I'd seen the first 20 minutes of Fight Club when I was in High School, but never finished the movie. I'm sure most of my readers have seen this shirt before*, so it should come as no surprise that I knew of the major twist at the end of the movie.
My question then is: did knowing this spoiler ruin the movie for me? For that matter, do spoilers in general ruin stories at all?
First, I think I should mention that while I read the book before watching the film, I'm going to concentrate on talking about the film - most people haven't read the book anyway, I assume. I should also assert that the simple fact of knowing that the narrator is Tyler Durden DID colour my viewing experience.
While I was watching, I was looking for all the clues that point to Ed Norton really being Tyler Durden. You know what? There are a lot of clues, starting with one of the opening lines: "I know this, because Tyler knows this." There's also an almost throw-away scene on a city bus where a passenger knocks into Norton, and not Tyler. All the references to sleep - the narrator never knows if he's awake or asleep; Tyler disappearing when Marla shows up; the subtle camera angles when both Tyler and Nortn are supposedly in the same room that only shows one or the other.**
These clues are fairly subtle, and I'm not sure that I would have noticed all of them had I not known the big secret at the end. These are clues that I would have definitely picked up on during a second viewing of the movie. Honestly, as much as I enjoyed the film, I don't think I would watch it again. In a way, this was my second viewing.
In this instance - just this particular case - I believe the spoiler did ruin the movie for me. But not because of someone else telling me the secret; I would have only watched it a second time anyway, no more. What may have been ruined was the whole "my mind is blown" moment, but I'm not too concerned about that. I can tell you what wasn't ruined: how I enjoyed the film.
Yes, the joy of discovering the truth about Tyler Durden was taken away from me, but instead I had fun picking out those "Aha!" moments that I mentioned earlier. You know what? I probably even missed more than what I mentioned, and could find more on a second viewing. So to answer my initial question, Fight Club was NOT ruined for me because I knew the story's secret.
But what about in general - are stories really ruined by spoilers? Most of the time a spoiler is just one small tidbit of information, and in no way affects the rest of it. I knew that Snape Kills Dumbledore, but I didn't know the Snape was the Half-Blood Prince (sorry). While I'm not presenting very much evidence in support of my theory, I think my stance here is fairly obvious. Spoilers don't ruin anything beyond a brief surprise at the end of it all.
* I'm not a fan of the wording of "Tyler Durden isn't real". While it gets the point across, I'd very much argue that Tyler Durden is very, very real in Fight Club.
** I really appreciated the way these clues were pulled off. Also the fact that the writers/director didn't feel it necessary to go back to each instance and hit us over the head with it, as many other entries into pop culture dealing with an imaginary person do (*cough*Dexter*cough*).
Saturday, August 11, 2012
The Dark Knight Rises
I was going to write out a whole review of The Dark Knight Rises. I had even started writing it out in a notebook (I got to two and a half pages, and still wasn't finished). But here's the problem. Since seeing it last Tuesday, I've called into question my opinions of the film. And no, not because I've listened to reviews of it that disagree with my initial grade (I thought it was the best of the trilogy immediately after watching it), but because I went back and watched the first two Nolan!Batman films - and that's when my opinion changed.
Call it revisionist history; I always felt that The Dark Knight felt like a really long movie, like they stiched two different stories together. Don't get me wrong - I really liked The Dark Knight, but I felt that it had too many flaws to be really a "great" movie or "greatest movie of all time".
This is why I felt that The Dark Knight Rises was a superior movie. It proceeded along the plot in a timely manner, and didn't feel too long (despite being actually longer in length). But then, as I said - I re-watched The Dark Knight recently, and I saw it in a different light. It didn't feel as before that Nolan was stitching together two stories (that of The Joker and Two-Face). It felt like a fairly cohesive story that worked quite well.
So all that's really changed is my opinion on which movie is better - and that is, The Dark Knight is better. That's not to say that The Dark Knight Rises is a poor movie - on the contrary, it's very good. I think I enjoyed Bane as a villain more than The Joker. However, I enjoyed The Joker as a character more than Bane. It's quite an interesting dilemma.
Suffice it to say, if you haven't seen The Dark Knight Rises, you should. I also urge you to NOT compare it to The Dark Knight if you hold it up on a pedestal. In all likelihood it's in your best interests to avoid watching either Batman Begins or The Dark Knight before watching Rises. Trust me, it stands very well on its own (despite its flaws).
Call it revisionist history; I always felt that The Dark Knight felt like a really long movie, like they stiched two different stories together. Don't get me wrong - I really liked The Dark Knight, but I felt that it had too many flaws to be really a "great" movie or "greatest movie of all time".
This is why I felt that The Dark Knight Rises was a superior movie. It proceeded along the plot in a timely manner, and didn't feel too long (despite being actually longer in length). But then, as I said - I re-watched The Dark Knight recently, and I saw it in a different light. It didn't feel as before that Nolan was stitching together two stories (that of The Joker and Two-Face). It felt like a fairly cohesive story that worked quite well.
So all that's really changed is my opinion on which movie is better - and that is, The Dark Knight is better. That's not to say that The Dark Knight Rises is a poor movie - on the contrary, it's very good. I think I enjoyed Bane as a villain more than The Joker. However, I enjoyed The Joker as a character more than Bane. It's quite an interesting dilemma.
Suffice it to say, if you haven't seen The Dark Knight Rises, you should. I also urge you to NOT compare it to The Dark Knight if you hold it up on a pedestal. In all likelihood it's in your best interests to avoid watching either Batman Begins or The Dark Knight before watching Rises. Trust me, it stands very well on its own (despite its flaws).
Sunday, July 22, 2012
Review: Dexter Season 6 (Spoilers)
I recently caught up with season 6 of Dexter, which has been over and done with for quite a while now (I believe they're gearing up for season 7, the first of the final two seasons). If you're not familiar with Dexter, here's the basic premise: Dexter is a serial killer who works for Miami Metro Homicide as a Blood Spatter Analyst. Oh, he only kills those he deems to be "bad". Season six deals largely with a couple of religious fanatics who believe they are bringing about the end of the world by re-enacting scenes from the Book of Revelation (and also killing people). It also deals with some other things, but that's the spoiler-free version.
**** SPOILERS FOLLOW THIS POINT ****
More specifically, season six also explores Dexter's spirituality. As in, does he have any beliefs beyond his Dark Passenger? This is something with which he struggles for the first half of the season, until he comes to a decision and the matter is abruptly dropped. This is where I was slightly disappointed with the season - but we'll get to that.
I suppose I should dive into some specifics. The season starts with Dexter trying to get his son into some prestigious school that just happens to be Catholic. This launches the question: What does Dexter believe in? Dexter at first determines that it's not important for him - but he needs to let his son, Harrison, decide for himself. Enter Brother Sam (played brilliantly by Mos). Brother Sam is a formerly violent man, who did the time he was sentenced and came out a religious, reformed person.
Sam challenges Dexter to accept that there is a light within him, that it's not all about his Dark Passenger. Dexter *almost* buys into this, until Sam is torn away from his life by someone he trusted, and Dexter reacts on impulse and kills in revenge. He then goes on a trip to Nebraska, where he faces temptation - and gives in a couple of times - but ultimately returns to his own "light" and sticks to the Code that has always steered him in the right direction (well, right for Dexter at any rate).
I suppose this is what amounts to the highlight of the season for me - this attempt to figure out the balance between "Good" and "Evil". No doubt, the writers present Dexter as "Good", and Gellar and Travis (okay...it's just Travis, in a reveal straight out of Psycho. More on that later.) are "Evil". But they go a little deeper and try to give Dexter some layers - and they were succeeding, right up until the moment Brother Sam dies.
I've never been a big fan of Dexter's interactions with his "Father", and Season 6 brought this to a whole new level. When Dexter kills Nick (who murdered Sam) out of revenge, Dexter's brother returns and acts as temptation for him - and he goes through with some pretty impulse-based killings. Dexter ends up realizing that he doesn't want to do that, and returns to familiar territory. Where am I going with this? Oh yes- this was basically your standard Angel on one shoulder, and Devil on the other. It was slightly silly, even if it did serve to illustrate the twist in the next episode.
What was that twist? We're originally presented with the premise that there are two killers, played by Edward James Olmos and Colin Hanks. It's revealed that Olmos has been dead for years, and all along it's been Hanks. He was seeing visions of Olmos, just like Dexter sees his Father. It's at this point in the reveal that everything goes downhill for the season.
Basically it's a race against the clock to find Travis (Hanks), and the final episode is Dexter's usual "Damsel in Distress" - except in this case it's Harrison in Distress. I suppose the story has to be resolved somehow, but look at how they ended season 4 - I thought that was done quite well. Instead we get this. At least they did end with Deb witnessing Dexter kill...we're left to wonder what the heck is going to happen with that in the next two seasons (which are going to be one big arc, according to the producers).
I'm starting to ramble now, so I do want to get to a some observations before I forget.
Number one - I really am creeped out by the whole Debra being in love with Dexter thing. While technically, it's okay - they're only adopted brother and sister - it's actually how she comes to realize it that makes it strange. She sees a therapist, who plants the idea into her head (and can someone tell me why Deb can't just be a loving sister for having Dexter in her life, and not be in love with him?), and she just accepts it. To me, it feels like she was manipulated into feeling that way. It's just creepy.
Number two - I always felt that in every season, Angel's character was sort of like Tyrol in Battlestar Galactica. He's the character that always Does Something Stupid to mess everything up. It seems like Angel made some better choices this season...except for once, and it was such a weird moment that seemed both in character and out of character at the same time. He smokes up with Quinn in his car - and while that seems like something he would do in the past, his character's decisions so far in season 6 negate this. But at the same time, Quinn is the one making Stupid Decisions this season. It's easy to see how he might influence Batista.
Number three - Lewis (or is it Louis?). This seems like a creepy guy - I'm not sure what his angle is, and I'm interested. I'd like to see where his character is going to go, and why he mailed the prosthetic limb from season 1 to Dexter - and what the markings on the hand mean.
Overall, I thought season 6 was pretty good, but it had some low points. There are only two more seasons left, so I'm already on board for those. Hope it's a good ride!
**** SPOILERS FOLLOW THIS POINT ****
More specifically, season six also explores Dexter's spirituality. As in, does he have any beliefs beyond his Dark Passenger? This is something with which he struggles for the first half of the season, until he comes to a decision and the matter is abruptly dropped. This is where I was slightly disappointed with the season - but we'll get to that.
I suppose I should dive into some specifics. The season starts with Dexter trying to get his son into some prestigious school that just happens to be Catholic. This launches the question: What does Dexter believe in? Dexter at first determines that it's not important for him - but he needs to let his son, Harrison, decide for himself. Enter Brother Sam (played brilliantly by Mos). Brother Sam is a formerly violent man, who did the time he was sentenced and came out a religious, reformed person.
Sam challenges Dexter to accept that there is a light within him, that it's not all about his Dark Passenger. Dexter *almost* buys into this, until Sam is torn away from his life by someone he trusted, and Dexter reacts on impulse and kills in revenge. He then goes on a trip to Nebraska, where he faces temptation - and gives in a couple of times - but ultimately returns to his own "light" and sticks to the Code that has always steered him in the right direction (well, right for Dexter at any rate).
I suppose this is what amounts to the highlight of the season for me - this attempt to figure out the balance between "Good" and "Evil". No doubt, the writers present Dexter as "Good", and Gellar and Travis (okay...it's just Travis, in a reveal straight out of Psycho. More on that later.) are "Evil". But they go a little deeper and try to give Dexter some layers - and they were succeeding, right up until the moment Brother Sam dies.
I've never been a big fan of Dexter's interactions with his "Father", and Season 6 brought this to a whole new level. When Dexter kills Nick (who murdered Sam) out of revenge, Dexter's brother returns and acts as temptation for him - and he goes through with some pretty impulse-based killings. Dexter ends up realizing that he doesn't want to do that, and returns to familiar territory. Where am I going with this? Oh yes- this was basically your standard Angel on one shoulder, and Devil on the other. It was slightly silly, even if it did serve to illustrate the twist in the next episode.
What was that twist? We're originally presented with the premise that there are two killers, played by Edward James Olmos and Colin Hanks. It's revealed that Olmos has been dead for years, and all along it's been Hanks. He was seeing visions of Olmos, just like Dexter sees his Father. It's at this point in the reveal that everything goes downhill for the season.
Basically it's a race against the clock to find Travis (Hanks), and the final episode is Dexter's usual "Damsel in Distress" - except in this case it's Harrison in Distress. I suppose the story has to be resolved somehow, but look at how they ended season 4 - I thought that was done quite well. Instead we get this. At least they did end with Deb witnessing Dexter kill...we're left to wonder what the heck is going to happen with that in the next two seasons (which are going to be one big arc, according to the producers).
I'm starting to ramble now, so I do want to get to a some observations before I forget.
Number one - I really am creeped out by the whole Debra being in love with Dexter thing. While technically, it's okay - they're only adopted brother and sister - it's actually how she comes to realize it that makes it strange. She sees a therapist, who plants the idea into her head (and can someone tell me why Deb can't just be a loving sister for having Dexter in her life, and not be in love with him?), and she just accepts it. To me, it feels like she was manipulated into feeling that way. It's just creepy.
Number two - I always felt that in every season, Angel's character was sort of like Tyrol in Battlestar Galactica. He's the character that always Does Something Stupid to mess everything up. It seems like Angel made some better choices this season...except for once, and it was such a weird moment that seemed both in character and out of character at the same time. He smokes up with Quinn in his car - and while that seems like something he would do in the past, his character's decisions so far in season 6 negate this. But at the same time, Quinn is the one making Stupid Decisions this season. It's easy to see how he might influence Batista.
Number three - Lewis (or is it Louis?). This seems like a creepy guy - I'm not sure what his angle is, and I'm interested. I'd like to see where his character is going to go, and why he mailed the prosthetic limb from season 1 to Dexter - and what the markings on the hand mean.
Overall, I thought season 6 was pretty good, but it had some low points. There are only two more seasons left, so I'm already on board for those. Hope it's a good ride!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)