"LOST" RETROSPECT: (4.08) "Meet Kevin Johnson"

 

"LOST" RETROSPECT: (4.08) "Meet Kevin Johnson"

Years ago, I had written an ARTICLE about the "LOST" Season Four episode, (4.08) "Meet Kevin Johnson". Instead of discussing the episode itself, my article focused on the media and fandom's reactions to it and especially their reactions to the Michael Dawson character, portrayed by Harold Perrineau. But after my recent rewatch, I decided to focus on the episode itself.

"Meet Kevin Johnson", in my personal opinion, was a very good episode. In fact, I consider it one of the better episodes from the series' fourth season and the second-best one that focused on Michael. Like Season Two's (2.07) "The Other 48 Days" and Season Six's (6.15) "Across the Sea", "Meet Kevin Johnson" featured a continuous flashback - the third longest in the show's history. Yet, screenwriters Elizabeth Sarnoff and Brian K. Vaughan had created something interesting with the episode's narrative. The continuous flashback was book-ended with present day scenes aboard Charles Widmore's freighter, the Kahana and on the island. I found this very original. But more importantly, I believe this episode featured one of Perrineau's best performances in the series, good enough for an Emmy nomination that sadly, never materialized.

My only complaint regarding "Meet Kevin Johnson" focused on its timeline. It had occurred to me that Benjamin Linus, the Others' leader, had sent Tom Friendly to New York City to recruit Michael, between the events of Season Three episodes, (3.13) "The Man from Tallahassee" and (3.19) "The Brig". Not only did I find this time period rather slim for Tom to travel to the United States and return in time for Season Three's last four or five episodes, I found myself wondering how Tom had left the island . . . following John Locke's destruction of the Others' submarine in "The Man from Tallahassee". Hmmm. It also occurred to me that roughly a month had passed between Michael and Walt's departure in the Season Two finale, (2.23-2.24) "Live Together, Die Alone" and Michael's return aboard the Kahana in (3.17) "Catch-22". I cannot help but feel that the episode's timeline may have been sketchy at best.

But I want to discuss something else about "Meet Kevin Johnson". In my previous article about the episode, I had discussed what I felt were the hypocritical reactions to Michael's character in this episode and throughout the series. After viewing "Meet Kevin Johnson", I recognized numerous instances of hypocrisy from the characters. In fact, the level of hypocrisy featured in the episode struck me as amazing.

I had a good deal of issues regarding Ben and Tom's exploitation of Michael’s guilt for killing Ana-Lucia and Libby. I realize both men had wanted to recruit him to help deal with those traveling aboard the Kahana. But every time Michael had brought up the kidnapping of his son Walt Lloyd, both men had failed to express any remorse for it. Tom had responded to Michael's accusation by gaslighting the latter over Ana-Lucia and Libby's deaths. I guess exploiting Michael's guilt was more important to him than acknowledging his own over the kidnapping. I also believe that recruiting Michael to serve as Ben's spy would have been easier for Tom if he had simply acknowledged the kidnapping and expressed remorse for it.

Ben had also gaslighted Michael. First, he had ordered Tom to instruct Michael to kill the Kahana crew. Ben even provided a package for the deed - a bomb - to Michael. Upon meeting the murderous Martin Keamy and his mercenaries, Michael had programmed the bomb to set it off. The bomb proved to be fake. Apparently, Ben wanted to prove to Michael that he was a good guy and incapable of killing others. I found this incredibly hypocritical, considering by this point, Ben already had already murdered his father years ago and God only knows how many others. And why on earth did he order Tom to instruct Michael to kill the Kahana crew in the first place? Why deliver a bomb - namely a fake one - to Michael? What made this whole situation so ironic is that in the end, Ben (with Keamy's help) proved to be the one responsible for the Kahana's destruction, along with the deaths of the remaining Kahana crew and Michael, when he killed Keamy inside the island’s Orchid Station. Hell, it took Ben another six years to finally express any remorse over Walt’s kidnapping.

Then we have Oceanic survivors Sayid Jarrah and James "Sawyer" Ford. Both men had condemned Michael for his actions in late Season Two, when they discovered he was among the Kahana crew. When Ben had informed some of the Oceanic castaways at the Others' abandoned barracks that Michael was serving as his spy aboard the Kahana, Sawyer had accused Michael of killing Libby and Ana-Lucia in order to free Ben and get off the island. Period. Nothing else. Upon discovering Michael's presence aboard the Kahana and that he was serving as Ben's spy, Sayid condemned Michael for being a traitor to the Oceanic castaways, when the latter led Sawyer, Jack Shephard, Hugo "Hurley" Reyes, and Kate Austen into a trap set by the Others in "Live Together, Die Alone". Sayid even turned Michael over to the freighter’s captain.

And yet . . . not once did Sawyer or Sayid ever mention Walt. Not . . . fucking . . . once. I found it odd that Sawyer had forgotten that Michael's actions had stemmed from his desire to rescue Walt from the Others’ clutches. I find this odd and very hypocritical, considering he had called himself killing Tom in retaliation for Walt's kidnapping. What made this reasoning dubious to me is that Sawyer never went after Ben for the kidnapping . . . the very man who had ordered the kidnapping in the first place. As for Sayid . . . he had learned about Naomi Dorrit's lies, witnessed Daniel Faraday's lies and Miles Strume's hostility on the island. Aboard the Kahana, Sayid had witnessed Captain Gault and other crewmen engaged in strange behavior. He also met Keamy and his fellow mercenaries aboard the Kahana. This should have made Sayid more leery of the Kahana crew. Instead, he became outraged over Michael working for Ben and exposed his fellow Oceanic castaway to the Kahana’s captain. He and accused Michael of not only working for Ben, but also for being a traitor to his fellow castaways. It finally occurred to me that ever since Shannon Rutherford's death in early Season Two, Sayid had developed a toxic obsession and hostility toward Ben Linus - which finally spilled over in late Season Five. It also occurred to me that neither Sawyer or Sayid had ever mentioned Walt or the kidnapping. Nor did either of them ever expressed concern or curiosity about his post-island life. Come to think of it, even Michael had his own hypocritical moment, when he accused Ben of being responsible for Ana-Lucia and Libby's deaths. I believe he wanted to blame Ben for driving him into committing his crimes in (2.20) "Two for the Road".

As I had stated earlier, I believe "Meet Kevin Johnson" was a pretty good episode and probably one of the better ones from Season Four of "LOST". I also noticed the episode reeked with hypocrisy - especially from characters like Benjamin Linus, Tom Friendly, Sayid Jarrah and James "Sawyer" Ford. I do not know if anyone else would regard their behavior and comments as hypocritical or view this all as the screenwriters' questionable writing. Oh well . . . I know how I feel.

"LOST" Retrospect: "Who Ordered the Dharma Initiative Purge?"

 

"LOST" RETROSPECTIVE: "WHO ORDERED THE DHARMA INITIATIVE PURGE?"

Eight years ago, I had written this article about a major incident on the ABC television series, "LOST". This incident happened to focus on the murders or "Purge" of the scientific research organization known as the Dharma Initiative. It happened on December 19, 1992; nearly twelve years before the series began and before the crash of Oceanic Airlines 815 flight.

In the Season Five episode, (5.10) "He's Our You", Oceanic Flight 815 survivor and later, time traveler Sayid Jarrah tried to murder young Ben Linus in 1977. In the following episode, another Oceanic time traveler, Dr. Jack Shephard, refused to treat the badly wounded Ben, who was near death. Eventually, two other time traveling castaways, James "Sawyer" Ford and Kate Austen, had taken Ben to the Others aka the Hostiles aka the Natives, a group of island inhabitants who served as its protectors on the behalf of the main protector Jacob, for treatment via Dr. Juliet Burke's instructions. Within a decade-and-a-half, Ben ended up ousting future billionaire Charles Widmore as leader of the Others.

Ever since the series had first aired, many fans had been uncertain of when Ben's tenure as the Others' leader had began - before or after the Purge. As I had stated earlier, the Purge occurred in December 1992, on the same day as Ben's birthday and during the same month as the Others' rejection of Widmore as their leader. Many fans and television critics had automatically assumed Ben had ordered the Purge. I have heard comments that compared Ben to Adolf Hitler. I have also heard comments that compared Ben’s younger self to a "young Hitler". Many people have claimed that it was Ben who had ordered the deaths of the Dharma Initiative members. However, I have my doubts.

During Seasons Three and Four, Ben had offered contradicting comments on whether or not he had ordered the Dharma Initiative Purge. In (3.23) "Through the Looking Glass", he had claimed responsibility of the Purge to Jack:

"Not so long ago, Jack. I made a decision that took the lives of over forty people in a single day"

Unfortunately, Ben had contradicted this claim in two other episodes. In the Season Three episode, (3.20) "The Man Behind the Curtain", he had said this to Oceanic survivor John Locke, while he displayed the remains of Dharma members at a mass grave:

"This is where I came from, John. These are my people. The Dharma Initiative. They came here seeking harmony, but they couldn't even co-exist with the Island's original inhabitants. And when it became clear that one side had to go, one side had to be purged, I did what I had to do. I was one of the people that was smart enough to make sure that I didn't end up in that ditch. Which makes me considerably smarter than you, John."

Ben never claimed responsibility for ordering the Purge to Locke. He had confessed to participating in the Purge. That same episode made it clear that his participation involved killing his abusive father, Dharma Initiative worker, Roger Linus. In fact, Ben also made the same thing clear in the Season Four episode, (4.11) "Cabin Fever", when he had the following conversation with another Oceanic castaway, Hugo "Hurley" Reyes:

HURLEY: So... This is where you shot Locke and left him for dead, huh?
BEN: Yes, Hugo, I was standing right where you are now when I pulled the trigger. Should have realized at the time that it was pointless, but... I really wasn't thinking clearly.
[Hurley steps back a little]
HURLEY: Is that why you killed all these people, too?
BEN: I didn't kill them.
HURLEY: Well, if the Others didn't wipe out the Dharma Initiative --
BEN: They did wipe them out, Hugo, but it wasn't my decision.
HURLEY: Then whose was it?
BEN: Their leader's.
HURLEY: But I thought you were their leader.
BEN: Not always.

Interesting. He had admitted to trying to kill Locke in "The Man Behind the Curtain". But he denied being the one who had ordered the Purge. Also, Ben had been truthful when he told Hurley that he had not always been the Others' leader. The series had featured three other leaders - the ageless Richard Alpert (who eventually became the future leaders' advisor), Eloise Hawking and Widmore. Although some fans remain convinced that Ben had ordered the Purge, there are a good number of fans who hold Widmore responsible.

Thanks to a flashback in the Season Five episode called (5.12) "Dead Is Dead" - viewers learned that Widmore had definitely been the leader of the Others back in 1988. And in another Season Four episode called (4.09) "The Shape of Things to Come", viewers learned in a flash forward scene set in London that Ben had taken the leadership of the Others away from Widmore:

WIDMORE: I know who you are, boy. What you are. I know that everything you have you took from me. So... Once again I ask you: Why are you here?
BEN: I'm here, Charles, to tell you that I'm going to kill your daughter. Penelope, is it? And once she's gone... once she's dead... then you'll understand how I feel. And you'll wish you hadn't changed the rules.
[Widmore shifts in his bed.]
WIDMORE: You'll never find her.
[Ben turns to leave.]
WIDMORE: That island's mine, Benjamin. It always was. It will be again.

I found it interesting that Widmore had regarded the island as "his". And there were other aspects of Widmore that I found interesting. The Season Five episode, (5.03) "Jughead", had revealed Widmore as a member of the Others, as far back as 1954 (when he was seventeen years-old). As one of the Others, Widmore (along with Richard and Hawking) had participated in a previous purge - that of U.S. Army personnel, who had brought a hydrogen bomb nicknamed "Jughead" with them to the island. On other occasions, Widmore had this inclination to kill anyone he deemed a threat to the island's secrecy. He killed a fellow Other to prevent the latter from leading Locke, Sawyer and Juliet to Richard's location in 1954. The 1988 flashback from "Dead Is Dead" revealed Ben's refusal to kill Danielle Rousseau and her baby, Alex. Instead, he claimed Alex as his child and threatened Danielle to stay away. This decision had angered Widmore, who had expected Ben to kill both. Why were Danielle and Alex's deaths that important to Widmore? Ironically, Widmore finally got his way regarding Danielle and Alex, thanks to Martin Keamy, the mercenary he had sent to the island to snatch Ben in Season Four.

So, when did Ben Linus replace Charles Widmore as leader of the Others? Before December 19, 1992? Or after? The photograph below from "The Man Behind the Curtain" hints that Ben had remained a worker for the DHARMA Initiative during that period, despite joining the Others sometime in the 1980s:



But had Ben assumed leadership of the Others by then? If not, does that mean Charles Widmore was still leading the Others in December 1992? Both the LOSTPEDIA and the WIKIPEDIA sites claimed that Richard Alpert had led the Others' purge against the Dharma Initiative in 1992. But neither site made it clear who had ordered the Purge. And "Dead Is Dead" never gave a clear date on Widmore's exile.

One would assume my choice for the man responsible for ordering the Purge would be Widmore. And you would be right. There seemed a good deal of evidence making him responsible. He had already participated in an earlier purge back in 1954. Ben had revealed time and again his willingness to use violence - even kill those he deemed a threat to himself or for emotional reasons. But the series had also revealed Widmore's willingness to do the same and especially kill in the name of protecting the island. And that included ordering Ben to kill an emotionally unstable Danielle Rousseau and her infant child. Widmore had also sent the murderous Martin Keamy to the island in late Season Three-Season Four to snatch Ben. He had claimed to Locke in (5.07) "The Life and Death of Jeremy Bentham" that he had done so to give Locke the opportunity to become the Others' new leader. Yet, his words to Locke contradicted his words to Ben in London, when he had claimed the island as "his". This scene had occurred nearly a year or more after the events of Season Four.

There is also the matter of whether Keamy had another agenda - namely to kill any of the Oceanic survivors that remained. In "Cabin Fever" he had demanded Sayid reveal the number of other Oceanic survivors and their location. Fortunately, the latter had refused. In a confrontation with the freighter's Captain Gault, Keamy revealed his intentions to "torch" the island. Some claimed that this had been Keamy's angry reaction to his men being attacked by the Smoke Monster. Yet, in (4.08) "Meet Kevin Johnson", Ben had accused the freighter crew of plans to snatch him and kill the island's inhabitants. The only freighter personnel in the room - spiritualist Miles Straume - had remained unusually silent. In the following episode, (4.09) "The Shape of Things to Come", Miles claimed that Keamy and his men were around to serve as security guards for a captured Ben. But there was the revelation that Widmore had set up a false location for the missing Oceanic 815 plane - with a plane wreck and dead bodies included. This is merely an assumption of mine, but I believe Widmore had sent Keamy to not only snatch Ben, but to kill the remaining Oceanic survivors as well to maintain the narrative. I found a good deal of clues that led me to suspect Widmore had ordered the Dharma Purge.

After watching the series more than once, I find it increasingly difficult to hold Ben responsible for the Purge. His actions against the Oceanic castaways had featured spying, kidnapping, harassment, threats and manipulation. He rarely resorted to murder - aside from his attempt to kill Locke and his order to kill Sayid, Jin Kwon and Bernard Nader during the events in the Season Three finale, (3.23) "Through the Looking Glass, Part 2". If Ben had been truly capable of ordering the Purge, he would have wiped out the Oceanic survivors (or tried to) after getting Jack to remove the tumor from his spine. The man had proved incapable of following Widmore's orders to kill Danielle and Alex.

In the end, viewers know that Charles Widmore had been the leader of the Others in 1988-89, when he had ordered Ben Linus to kill Danielle Rosseau and her infant daughter. Viewers know that Ben had refused. Viewers also know that Richard Alpert had led a group of Others in the Purge against the U.S. Army in 1954. He also led the Others' purge against the Dharma Initiative on December 19, 1992. On that same date, Ben killed his father, Roger Linus, in a similar manner – by toxic gas. And viewers know that Ben had eventually replaced Widmore and exiled the latter off the island. Personally, I suspect Widmore had ordered the Purge against Dharma. But I suspect it was an order he had not issued lightly, given the number of years the Others had been in conflict with the Dharma Initiative and the dangerous nature of latter's experiments regarding the island's electromagnetic energy.

But I cannot say with any authority that Widmore had ordered the Dharma Initiative Purge. If we only knew exactly when Widmore had been exiled, perhaps this mystery of the Purge will finally be cleared.

"LOST" RETROSPECT: (4.10) "Something Nice Back Home"

Five years ago, (4.10) "Something Nice Back Home", a Season Four episode of "LOST" aired for the first time and I wrote a review of the episode a year later. After a new, recent viewing, I decided to write another article on the episode: 


"LOST" RETROSPECT: (4.10) "Something Nice Back Home"

I am beginning to wonder if (4.10) "Something Nice Back Home", a Season Four episode from "LOST", might be one of the most misunderstood episodes of the series. When I recently viewed it for a third time after four years, I came to a realization that I may have misunderstood it.

"Something Nice Back Home" is basically a Jack Shephard episode that featured three main subplots - two of them about the very intense Dr. Shephard. One of them centered on James "Sawyer" Ford, Claire Littleton and Miles Straume's efforts to reach the Oceanic 815 survivors' beach camp, after surviving the near massacre at the Others' compound by mercenary Martin Keamy and his merry band of killers. The second subplot was about Dr. Juliet Burke's efforts to save Jack's life after he had been struck down by appendicitis. And the final subplot turned out to be a flash forward about Jack's time with fellow castaways Kate Austen and Aaron Littleton in Los Angeles, three years in the future.

During the first subplot, Sawyer, Claire and Miles' jungle trek to the beach camp proved to be a tense little adventure that obviously appealed to many viewers. Ever since Sawyer had rescued Claire during Keamy's attack upon the Others' compound in (4.09) "The Shape of Things to Come", fans began labeling him as the series' "hero". After my second viewing of the two episodes, I found this odd. Aside from his rescue of Claire, I cannot recall Sawyer doing anything worth noticing. Former Others leader Ben Linus had saved the survivors of Keamy's attack and the Smoke Monster by leading them out of the besieged compound in "The Shape of Things to Come". And in "Something Nice Back Home", pilot Frank Lapidus saved Sawyer, Claire, Miles and Aaron with a warning and prevented them from encountering a very angry Keamy and his surviving men. Frank also convinced Keamy to use another jungle trail in order to distract the latter from the castaways' hiding place.

One might view Sawyer's protective attitude toward Claire as an example of his heroism. People are entitled to do so . . . even if I have trouble accepting this. Mind you, I found the exchanges between Sawyer and Miles rather amusing. But when Sawyer caught Miles shooting odd stares at Claire, the former decided to go into a belligerent protective mode and warn Miles to keep his distance. This incident, along with Miles' detection of Danielle Rousseau and Karl's bodies were signs of Miles' psychic ability, but Sawyer was unaware of it. Eventually, Sawyer regretted his warning, when Claire disappeared into the jungle with the Smoke Monster, who was in the form of Christian Shephard - hers and Jack's father. Like I said, this subplot provided plenty of suspense, adventure and snark. But "LOST" never answered some of the questions that it raised. Why did Claire leave with the Man in Black (Smoke Monster)? Why did she leave Aaron behind? What happened to her during those three years before her reunion with her fellow castaways in Season Six? And was Claire's disappearance nothing more than a plot device for Kate's story line featuring those years with baby Aaron?

The second plot line focused on Jack's appendicitis. In fact, this episode began with this subplot, using the trademark shot of Jack's eye opening. Not much came from this particular subplot. While gathering surgical instruments and medical supplies at the Staff Station, both Jin and Sun Kwon discovered that one of the freighter newcomers, Charlotte Lewis, spoke Korean. Jin informed Charlotte that he will harm her fellow freighter passenger, Daniel Faraday, if she did not secure a place for the pregnant Sun aboard the Kahuna freighter. The subplot also revealed Juliet's talent for leadership. She also realized that Jack still loved Kate and that her romantic friendship with him was nothing more than an illusion.

In the end, Charlotte did not ensure Sun's departure from the island. Juliet did in the Season Four finale, (4.12) "There's No Place Like Home, Part I". Knowledge of Charlotte's ability to speak Korean only allowed her to issue a warning to Jin about the dangers of the island before her death in Season Five's (5.05) "This Place is Death". And Juliet's leadership abilities were never explored in future episodes. Adhering to Hollywood's sexist codes, John Locke ended up acting as leader of the castaways left behind during the island's time jumps. Sawyer assumed the role of "leader" following Locke's departure from the island, via the Orchid Station's donkey wheel.

And to this day, "LOST fans have no idea on what led to Jack's attack of appendicitis. Many have speculated, claiming that either it was a sign of the Island's displeasure over Jack's eagerness to leave or a symbol of his subconscious reacting to Jack's desire. Who knows? Fellow castaway Rose Nadler expressed her belief to husband Bernard that Jack's illness was an ominous warning. In her view, everyone "gets better" on the Island. Naturally, she could only speak from her personal experiences and knowledge of what happened to Locke's legs. I have decided not to view Jack's appendicitis from any metaphoric point of view and see it as nothing more than an opportunity for "LOST" writers to end the burgeoning Jack/Juliet romance. When Jack made it clear that he wanted Kate to participate in his operation, Juliet realized that Jack was not in love with her and told Kate. What made this whole mystery surrounding Jack's infirmity ridiculous is that three years and two seasons later, island guru Jacob told Jack and a few others that staying or leaving the island (and accepting the role as island leader) was a matter of choice.

The episode's last episode - the 2007 flash forward featuring Jack and Kate's romance in Los Angeles - seemed to have generated the greatest amount of contempt from the fans and the media. Many fans blamed Jack's personal flaws for his meltdown and break-up with Kate, complaining about his alcohol and drug dependence, his jealousy toward Kate's feelings for Sawyer (who had remained on the island), and his controlling nature. They believed if Jack had kept these flaws in check, he could have enjoyed a happy life with Kate and Aaron. Others believed that Jack's visit to Hurley at the Santa Rosa Mental Health Institute triggered a realization that he needed to return to the Island in order to meet his "destiny".

I have a different views on the subplot featuring Jack's meltdown. One, I believe it was the best subplot in "Something Nice Back Home". It was the only subplot that helped drive the series' main narrative. And unlike the Sawyer/Claire/Miles and the appendicitis subplots, it did not end with unanswered questions. More importantly, the episode raised a question that many fans, including myself, had failed to notice. What really led to Jack's post-Island meltdown and break-up with Kate? In my previous review, I had expressed an opinion that Jack's perfect life with Kate and Aaron was too superficial to last. I never realized the extent of how shallow and false his life was. After viewing"Something Nice Back Home" for the second time, I realized that this question was answered in (4.04) "Eggtown" and in future episodes such as (4.12) "There's No Place Like Home", (5.02) "The Lie", (5.04) "The Little Prince" and (5.11) "Whatever Happened, Happened".

What am I trying to say? Simple. Jack and the other members of the Oceanic Six had created lives filled with unnecessary and/or selfish lies, deceit, illusions and grief. Audiences had already experienced Hugo "Hurley" Reyes' crash and burn in flashbacks featured in the Season Four premiere, (4.01) "The Beginning of the End". In this episode, audiences finally witnessed Jack's future meltdown. In a flash forward from "Eggtown", Jack revealed the Oceanic Six's major lie about the crash of Oceanic Flight 815 during Kate's criminal trial:

DUNCAN: Were you aware that Ms. Austen was a fugitive being transported by a United States marshal on that flight to Los Angeles for trial?

JACK: I did learn that eventually, yes.

DUNCAN: From the U.S. Marshal?

JACK: No, the marshal died in the crash. I never spoke to him. Ms. Austen told me.

DUNCAN: Did you ever ask her if she was guilty?

JACK: No. Never.

DUNCAN: Well, that seems like a reasonable question. Why not?

JACK: I just assumed that there had been some kind of mistake.

DUNCAN: And why would you think that?

JACK: Only eight of us survived the crash. We landed in the water. I was hurt, pretty badly. In fact, if it weren't for her, I would have never made it to the shore. She took care of me. She took care of all of us. She — she gave us first aid, water, found food, made shelter. She tried to save the other two, but they didn't—

As we all know, this is a load of horseshit. But what led Jack to tell all of these lies. The episode (4.14) "There's No Place Like Home" featured a scene in which Locke asked Jack to lie about the Island and their their experiences during the past three months . . . to protect the Island. Jack had announced his intentions to follow Locke's instructions in(5.02) "The Lie". Kate, Sun and Sayid agreed to support his lies. Hurley did not, claiming that they were unnecessary. Eventually, Hurley capitulated to Jack's demands. I never understood why Jack had created such unnecessary lies about the island. It had disappeared after Ben had pushed the Orchid Station's donkey wheel. By the time the Oceanic Six were "rescued", they had traveled many miles away from the island, thanks to Kahuna freighter's helicopter, floating in the ocean for several days and Penny Widmore's yacht, which conveyed them to the Java Trench, where a fake Oceanic 815 airplane was planted by Penny's father, Charles Widmore and near the island of Sumba. The only person who could have found the Island was Widmore. Being a former resident of the Island, he knew how to acquire information on the Island's locations. And once he did, Widmore dispatched Martin Keamy and his thugs there to collect Ben Linus. The authorities would have never found the Island, and the lie did not prevente Widmore from finding it again, as Season Six eventually proved. Leaving behind so many castaways and pretending they were dead did not serve a damn thing.

There was another lie that proved to be even more destructive . . . namely the lie about fugitive Kate Austen being the mother of Aaron Littleton, Claire's son. When "Something Nice Back Home" first aired, many viewers believed that Jack had coerced Kate into pretending to be Aaron's mother in order to protect him from the foster care system or Charles Widmore. In "There's No Place Like Home, Part I", both Jack and Kate learned that Claire's mother, Carole Littleton, was alive and well. Both realized they were keeping Aaron from his grandmother via the lie, but both continued the deception. A flashback in "The Little Prince" revealed that it was Kate who had suggested she pretend to be Aaron's mother, due to her selfish desire to use Aaron as an emotional comfort blanket:

KATE: I've been thinking a lot about him. Did you know that Claire was flying to L.A. to give him up for adoption?

JACK: No. No, I didn't.

KATE: I think we should say he's mine.

JACK: What?

KATE: We could say that I was six months pregnant when I was arrested and that I gave birth to him on the Island. No one would ever know.

JACK: Kate, no. You don't have to... [sighs] There's other ways too this.

KATE: After everyone we've lost--Michael, Jin, Sawyer... I can't lose him, too.

JACK: Sawyer's not dead.

KATE: No. But he's gone. Good night, Jack.

JACK: Kate... If we're gonna be safe, if we're gonna protect the people that we left behind, tomorrow morning, I'm gonna have to convince everyone to lie. If it's just me, they're never gonna go for it. So I'm gonna turn to you first. Are you with me?

KATE: I have always been with you.

Wow. I find it interesting that so many fans have complained about Jack's controlling nature. Yet, it is also easy to see that he can be very susceptible to Kate's manipulations. Yet, very few people have commented on this. By the way, Kate's suggestion was confirmed in a confession that she had made to Cassidy Phillips, Sawyer's ex-girlfriend and fellow grifter, in "Whatever Happened, Happened". And Jack . . . due to his selfish desire to earn or maintain Kate's love, agreed to support her lie. I suspect his encounter with Carole Littleton at his father's funeral service dealt two major blows to Jack's psyche. He learned that Claire Littleton was his half-sister, due to an affair between Christian Shephard and Carole. And two, he had allowed Kate to use his nephew as an emotional blanket, while keeping said nephew from the latter's very healthy grandmother. I suspect that this discovery had led Jack to stay away from Kate for a while. But after seeing her at her trial, he realized he could not stay away and caved in to her demand that he need to accept Aaron as hers in order for them to have a relationship.

But Jack's conversation with Hurley at the mental hospital only proved something that Jack could not face - he was living a life based upon lies about the Island, the survivors of the crash and especially Aaron. And I also suspect that his discovery of Kate's deception about the favor she did for Sawyer made him realized that he was maintaining lies for the love of a woman who was lying to him. No wonder he freaked out in the end with booze, pills and anger. I suspect that Jack's outburst about Kate not being related to Aaron was a hint of her own meltdown and realization, a few months later.

"Something Nice Back Home" was not perfect. The episode featured one entertaining and suspenseful subplot that brought up questions behind Claire Littleton's disappearance - questions that were never really explored after Claire's reappearance in Season Six. It featured another subplot regarding Jack's appendicitis that raised both questions and minor subplots that were never dealt with any satisfaction. The only subplot I believe that had any meat or merit was the flash forward featuring Jack Shephard's meltdown regarding the Island, Kate Austen and his nephew Aaron Littleton. So in the end, all was not lost for "Something Nice Back Home".

"LOST" (2004-2010): Favorite Character Centric Episodes - Part II

Below is Part II of a list of my favorite episodes featuring "LOST" characters:


"LOST" (2004-2010): FAVORITE CHARACTER CENTRIC EPISODES - Part II


James "Sawyer" Ford



1. (5.08) "La Fleur" - Sawyer, Juliet and the other remaining island survivors are left in 1974, following the end of the time jumps. They join the Dharma Initiative after rescuing one of their members from the Others.




2. (1.16) "Outlaws" - Sawyer becomes obsessed with finding the boar that raided his tent and goes into the jungle to find it. A flashback reveal the murder/suicide of his parents and his hunt for the con man who cheated them in Australia.




Sayid Jarrah



1. (4.03) "The Economist" - Sayid makes a deal with Frank Lapidus to leave the island and head for the freighter, in exchange for freeing Charlotte Lewis from Locke's group. Flash forwards reveal his experiences as Ben's personal assassin.




2. (1.09) "Solitary" - Sayid meets Danielle Rosseau for the first time and is held captive by her. Flashbacks reveal his reunion with an old childhood friend, Nadia




3. (6.06) "Sundown" - After Sayid is recruited to the Man in Black's (aka the Smoke Monster) cause, the latter issues an ultimatum to the Others: either join him or die. Sayid helps his brother deal with a loan shark in the Flash Sideways.




Jin-Soo Kwon



1. (1.17) ". . . In Translation" - Jin finally discovers that Sun knows English, while dealing with his latest clash with Michael. Flashbacks reveal the Kwons' troubling marriage from his POV.




2. (5.05) "This Place Is Death" - This episode featured Jin's experiences with a younger Danielle Rousseau, her team and the Smoke Monster in 1988. Charlotte Lewis dies from the time jumping and Locke finally leaves the island via the Donkey Wheel.




Sun Hwa-Kwon



1. (3.18) "D.O.C." - After revealing that the Others' pregnant women have died before giving birth, Juliet helps Sun confirm the date of conception of her unborn baby, verifying the identity of the father.




2. (2.16) "The Whole Truth" - Sun discovers that she is pregnant. And flashbacks reveal some of her close relationship with an old beau and Jin's infertility. Meanwhile, Ana-Lucia, Sayid and Charlie set out verify Ben's story about arriving on the island in a balloon.




3. (1.06) "House of the Rising Sun" - Sun's unhappy marriage to Jin is revealed in this episode. Also, Jack makes plans to move the crash survivors to a large cave.




Benjamin Linus



1. (3.20) "The Man Behind the Curtain" - Ben leads Locke to a meeting with the Others' leader, Jacob at the island's mysterious cabin. And flashbacks reveal Ben's birth and his early years on the island.




2. (4.09) "The Shape of Things to Come" - In this episode, a team of mercenaries from the freighter attacks Locke's group at the Others' barracks. Meanwhile, flash forwards reveal Ben's early months off the island, which include recruiting Sayid as his assassin and a confrontation with Charles Widmore.


Part III will feature the last five characters

"REAL STEEL" (2011) Review

"REAL STEEL" (2011) Review

Every once in a while, I would come across one of those movies in which I have to be forced to watch . . . against my will. This happened with Matthew Vaughn's 2007 comedy-fantasy "STARDUST". And it happened again with the 2008 movie, "SPEED RACER". Since I ended up enjoying both movies, I finally allowed a member of my family to talk me into seeing the recent Disney movie, "REAL STEEL".

Partially based upon Richard Matheson's 1956 short story called "Steel", the movie told the story of a struggling promoter of boxing robots named Charlie Kenton in the year 2020. After his own boxing robot bites the dust in a match with bull owned by a promoter to whom he owns money, Charlie finds himself saddled with Max, an 11 year-old son he had conceived with an ex-girlfriend that recently passed away. The two stumbles across a discarded robot, whom they hope will rise to the top of the robotic boxing world. Along the way, Charlie and Max manage to learn about each other before the latter ends up in the custody of his aunt Debra and her husband, Marvin.

I understand that the majority of "REAL STEEL" was filmed in Michigan. I find this rather odd, considering that most of the movie was set in Texas. Oh well. The movie did a pretty good job of creating an atmosphere similar to eastern and central Texas, thanks to Mauro Fiore's rich and colorful photograph. Unfortunately, the cast failed to convey the same atmosphere, considering that only one used a Texan accent.

But "REAL STEEL" is not about Texas. It is about the sport of boxing in which the contestants are no longer humans, but robots. Despite the fact that the movie is somewhat based upon a short story that also served as the basis of a "TWILIGHT ZONE" episode. What can I say? The movie failed to impress me. Boxing robots? Perhaps this story theme would have worked in the STAR TREK universe or even in that "TWILIGHT ZONE" episode. But this movie did not work for me. I simply could not find it within myself to care about the characters or whether the main protagonists' robot, Atom, would prevail.

One of my problems with "REAL STEEL" was screenwriter John Gatins' failure to make me care about Atom. The robot seemed more like a slightly contrived plot device created to manipulate tears and compassion toward it. If this movie had been about a human boxer, an android with strong human characteristics (think Data in "STAR TREK: NEXT GENERATION"), or in the case of the "TWILIGHT ZONE" episode - about a human pretending to be a robot; perhaps I could have felt some sympathy or any kind of emotion toward it, instead of sheer boredom.

As for the story regarding Charlie and Max's relationship, I found it very unoriginal and equally manipulative. This estranged parent-child plot line has been done to death in many movies either directed or produced by Steven Spielberg. By the way, "REAL STEEL" was released by DreamWorks, Spielberg's production company. From a technical perspective, "REAL STEEL" seemed like a well made movie. But I found it so unoriginal - despite the premise of boxing robots - and emotionally manipulative that it occurred to me that I may never warm up to it.

Like the movie's plot and production, the cast of "REAL STEEL" seemed technically on spot. I can honestly say that I could not spot a bad performance from the cast. Unfortunately, only two or three performances impressed me. One of them did not come from Hugh Jackman. Charlie Kenton was not the first slightly unsympathetic character he has portrayed. But his Charlie struck me as too much of a cliché for me to really care about. Even worse, Jackman portrayed a Texan with a Brooklyn (or New Jersey?) accent. On the other hand Kevin Durand managed to utilize a Texan accent. He portrayed a sports promoter named Ricky, to whom Charlie owned money. And I was not impressed. It was not Durand's fault. The poor man found himself stuck with a character that was nothing more than a second-rate, one-dimensional villain. Anthony Mackie was clearly wasted as Finn, another sports promoter and Charlie's friend. He gave it his best, but the character of Finn never struck me as interesting. And poor James Rehborn looked as if he could barely generate any interest in his character, the husband of Max's aunt.

But there were performances that managed to impress me. Dakota Goyo gave a savy performance as Charlie's estranged son, Max. Thankfully, he did not spend most of his screen time acting like many other petulant children, noisily resentful of being in the company of an estranged parent figure. Thanks to Gatins' script and Goyo's performance, Max struck me not only a lot more mature than his father; but also a far cry from being a cliché. I could say the same for Hope Davis' portrayal of Max's aunt Debra. Gatins could have easily written her character as a prim and cold-eye parental figure that would drive Max to his father's arms. But Davis had the good luck to portray a warm and intelligent woman, whose desire to raise Max had more to do with love than cold responsibility to a blood relative. Evangeline Lilly had come a long way from her first season on "LOST", seven years ago. I have never viewed her as a terrible actress. But I found her acting skills rather mediocre. Like I said, she has come a long way. Her performance in "REAL STEEL" made it apparent that she has become a solid and competent actress. In fact, I found her portrayal of Charlie's childhood friend and potential love interest, Bailey Tallet, to be a breath of fresh air. Her Bailey was frank, emotional, witty and not tainted by any clichés.

But in the end, neither the performances of Goyo, Hope, and Lilly; along with Fiore's photography could save "REAL STEEL". At least not for me. The movie did turn out to be a hit. And a good number of critics actually enjoyed the film. The problem for me was that I found it difficult to share their opinions. Who knows? Perhaps one day I might change my mind.

"REAL STEEL" (2011) Photo Gallery

Below are images from the new movie, "REAL STEEL". Directed by Shawn Levy, the movie stars Hugh Jackman, Dakota Goyo and Evangeline Lilly:


"REAL STEEL" (2011) Photo Gallery

"ROBIN HOOD" (2010) Review

”ROBIN HOOD” (2010) Review

When I had first learned that Ridley Scott planned to direct his own version of the Robin Hood legend, I merely responded with a shake of my head. The last thing I wanted to see was another take on the famous English outlaw. But since I was a fan of the director, I decided to give it a chance.

For years, I had harbored the belief that the 1938 Errol Flynn movie, ”THE ADVENTURES OF ROBIN HOOD”, was the true story myth about the famous outlaw. Imagine my shook when I discovered I had been wrong. One of the featurettes from the movie’s DVD release revealed that there had been numerous versions of the Robin Hood folklore. With that in mind, I found it easy to prepare myself for any version that might appear in Scott’s new movie.

”ROBIN HOOD” opened in the year 1199. Robin Longstride is a common archer who had fought alongside King Richard the Lionheart of England during the Third Crusade. Following the death of Richard during a battle in which the English Army attempted to ransack a French castle; Robin and three other common soldiers - Alan A'Dale, Will Scarlett, and Little John - attempt to return to their homeland after ten years of fighting abroad. Along the way, they come across an ambush of the Royal guard by Sir Godfrey, an English knight with French lineage and allegiance. The King of France had ordered Sir Godfrey to assassinate Richard. Having discovered that the King was already dead, Sir Godfrey is chased off by the arrival of Robin and his companions. Aiming to return to England safely and richer in pocket than they left it, Robin and his men steal the armor of the slain Knights and head for the English ships on the coast under the guise of noblemen. Before leaving the scene of slaughter, Robin promises a dying Knight, Sir Robert Loxley, to return a sword to the man's father in Nottingham.

Upon arriving in England, Robin (disguised as Loxley) informs the Royal family of the King's death and witnesses the crowning of King John, Richard’s younger brother. Robin and his companions head to Nottingham, where Loxley's father, Sir Walter, asks him to continue impersonating his son in order to prevent the family lands being taken by the Crown. Loxley's widow, Lady Marion, is initially distrustful of Robin, but soon warms to him. But before long, Robin and his friends find themselves swept into England’s political intrigue between the English Northern barons and King John; along with a threat of invasion by the King of France.

I will not deny that ”ROBIN HOOD” has a few problems. If I must be honest, there were three aspects of the film that I either disliked or left me feeling puzzled. One, I did not care for the presence of Lady Marion’s presence on the battlefield between the French invaders and the English defenders. If this was an attempt to make Lady Marion’s character more action-oriented and politically correct, it did not work with me. She did not have any experience as a warrior. Nor did the movie ever made it clear that she had been trained to fight battles or handle weapons of war, like the Éowyn character in the ”LORD OF THE RINGS” Trilogy. I had no problems with the scene of Marion killing the French officer who tried to rape her. But her presence on that battlefield beneath the White Cliffs of Dover struck me as utterly ridiculous.

I also found the sequence that led to Sir Walter’s revelation that Robin’s father, Thomas Longstride, had earlier led some civil rights movement against the Crown before his death rather irrelevant. Before this revelation, Sir Walter kept hinting that he knew something about Robin. I had suspected that he would reveal that Robin was his illegitimate son or something like that. Considering that Robin seemed determined to protect the Loxleys and take up their cause against King John, I found this revelation about Robin’s father somewhat tacked on and unnecessary. My last problem with ”ROBIN HOOD” centered around the movie’s ending. Following the English army’s successful defense against the French, King John reneged on his promise to the English barons that he would sign the Charter of the Forest - a document for constitutional reforms. I had no problems with this turn of events, considering that John resisted signing the document until he added it as a supplement to the Magna Carta, some sixteen to seventeen years later. Unfortunately, in addition to refusing to sign the document, King John also declared Robin Longstride aka Sir Robert Loxley an outlaw. Why? How did the King know about Robin’s true identity in the first place? Who told him? Certainly not the main villain, Sir Godfrey, who died before he could inform John that the real Sir Robert was killed in France. Neither Sir Walter or Lady Marion would have told him. Who did? And why did the King name Robin as an outlaw? Did he decided to make this declaration upon learning that Robin was NOT Sir Robert Loxley? Even if someone could provide answers to my questions, the entire scenario regarding Robin’s status at the end of the film came off as rushed to me.

But despite these misgivings of ”ROBIN HOOD”, I ended up enjoying it very much. Ridley Scott and screenwriter Brian Helgeland did a pretty damn good job in portraying the Robin Hood legend from a new and completely fresh point-of-view. Well, perhaps it was not completely fresh. After all, the movie is obviously an origins tale about how one Robin Longstride became “Robin Hood”. I have seen a similar origins tale in the 1991 Kevin Reynolds film, ”ROBIN HOOD: PRINCE OF THIEVES”. However, Robin’s origin tale was merely rushed in that film’s first half hour. Scott and Helgeland decided to create a more in-depth story about the outlaw’s origin in this film. In fact, the movie only featured one scene in which Robin and his friends actually participated in an act of theft. It involved the return of grain confiscated by the Crown. I would not be surprised if many had complained about this, considering that it went against the traditional grain of what to expect in a movie about Robin Hood. However, I was too busy enjoying the movie to really care.

Another aspect of ”ROBIN HOOD” that I found very admirable was its complex portrayal of the English Royal Family. Most versions of the Robin Hood tale tend to have conflicting views of the two Royal brothers – Richard and John. John is usually portrayed as a sniveling and greedy prince who resented the reputation of his older brother. And Richard is usually portrayed as the older and noble brother – something of a “straight arrow” type. Scott and Helgeland somewhat skewered these portraits in the movie. Superficially, Richard is portrayed as noble, popular with his men and pure at heart. Yet, a closer look at the monarch revealed him to be avaricious, thin-skinned and somewhat petty. After all, the movie did start with him leading an attack against a French noble’s castle in an attempt to ransack it for riches to add to the Royal coffers. And when Robin Longstride revealed his true feelings about a vicious battle led by Richard in Jeruseleum upon the monarch’s urging, the archer and his friends found themselves locked in a wooden stock during Richard’s last battle. Prince (later King) John is portrayed as an arrogant and selfish young man only concerned with his desires and ego. Yet, the second half of the movie also portrayed him as a man willing to fight alongside his men in the defense of England and willing to occasionally listen to good advice. Neither Richard nor John are portrayed in a one-dimensional manner. Which I found very satisfying.

In fact, I would go as far to say that ”ROBIN HOOD” is a somewhat complex and tale about the effects of the Third Crusade upon the English Royal Family, its adversarial relationship with France, which ended up lasting for centuries, and the clash between the Crown and the country’s Northern citizens. Mind you, some of these plotlines have popped up in other Robin Hood movies. But Scott and Hegeland managed to weave all of these aspects into the movie’s story with surprising skill. Mind you, they did not achieve this with any perfection, but it turned out to be a lot better than most movies are capable of handling. And all of this culminated in a superbly directed sequence in which King John, Robin and many other Englishmen defended the country’s shores against the invading French. The only aspect that slightly spoiled this scene was the presence of Lady Marion in battle. Some critics have compared this movie unfavorable to the 1938, accusing it of being lifeless and grim. Hmm . . . perhaps they were thinking of another Ridley Scott film. Because ”ROBIN HOOD” struck me as the liveliest film that he has ever directed. It did have its dark moments. But I had no problem with that. Liveliness mixed with some darkness has always appealed to me. I have always had a problem with the lack of darkness in ”THE ADVENTURES OF ROBIN HOOD”. It prevented that movie from having an edge of darkness that I usually like to see in an adventure film.

The movie’s technical aspects were superb. I especially have to give kudos John Mathieson for his beautiful photography. I had feared that ”ROBIN HOOD” would end up with a slightly dark look, which could be found in the 1991 Robin Hood film and even in part of ”GLADIATOR”. Mind you, the France sequences did come off as slightly dark. But once Robin and his friends reached England . . . oh my God! The photography was just beautiful. I can think of three scenes that literally blew my mind – the journey up the Thames River to London, Lady Marion and the Loxley hands working in the fields with the threat of a thunderstorm brewing in the background, and the English Army’s journey to the South East coast near Dover. I also enjoyed Janty Yates’ costumes, as well. Were her costumes historically accurate? I have not the foggiest idea. That particular period in history has never been familiar to me.

The acting in ”ROBIN HOOD” was superb. I could say ”of course”, but I have come across movies with an exceptional cast that ended up featuring some pretty bad performances. Thankfully, I cannot say the same about this movie. Russell Crowe was superb as Robin Longstride. His performance was not as flashy as the likes of Errol Flynn, Kevin Costner or even Patrick Bergin. But I am thankful that it was not, because such a performance would not suit him. His screen chemistry with Cate Blanchett sizzled. I found this surprising, considering that the two actors from Down Under never worked together. Or have they? Anyway, Blanchett was just as superb as Crowe and gave an interesting take on a Lady Marion who was older and more experienced in life than the previous takes on the character. Mark Strong portrayed the traitorous Sir Godfrey. He gave his usual competent performance, but I have to admit that I found nothing exceptional about his performance. One performance that did caught my attention belonged to Oscar Isaac, who gave a complex and interesting portrayal of the young King John.

I also enjoyed Eileen Atkins’ sardonic portrayal of John and Richard’s mother, Eleanor of Aquitaine. It seemed a pity that her role was not that large. I am glad that Scott Grimes, Alan Doyle and especially Kevin Durand got a chance to strut their stuff. Their performances as Robin’s friends – Will Scarlet, Allan A'Dayle and Little John – really enlivened the film. It helped that Crowe had recruited Doyle for the film, due to the latter’s musical collaboration with the actor. And considering that Crowe, Doyle and Grimes are all musicians as well, I suspect they must have had a merry time with some of the film’s musical interludes. Another performance that enlivened the movie came from Swedish actor Max Von Sydow, who portrayed Lady Marion’s father in-law, Sir Walter Loxley. There seemed to be a constant twinkle in his eyes in most of his scenes that made his presence enjoyable. There was one performance that left me feeling unsatisfied and it belonged to Matthew McFayden’s portrayal of the Sheriff of Nottingham. I am not saying that McFayden gave a poor performance. I am merely saying that his presence was nothing more than a waste of time. McFayden appeared long enough to sneer and make a pass at Lady Marion, attempt to placate the invading French troops in a cowardly manner and express surprise and fear at the first note received from the new “Robin Hood” near the end of the film. Like I said . . . a waste of time.

Considering that ”ROBIN HOOD” did not utilize the usual myth found in other films about the English outlaw, I am not surprised that many would dismiss it as one of Ridley Scott’s lesser films. Well, they are entitled to their opinion. I had a few problems with the movie. But overall, I was more than pleasantly surprised to find myself enjoying it very much . . . considering my initial assumptions about it. Once again, director Ridley Scott and actor Russell Crowe failed to disappoint me and delivered a very entertaining film.

"ROBIN HOOD" (2010) Photo Gallery

Below are photos from "ROBIN HOOD", director Ridley Scott's new adaptation of the English folklore hero. Russell Crowe, Cate Blanchett and Mark Strong star:

"ROBIN HOOD" (2010) Photo Gallery