The finale may have disappointed, but Lost's place in history is assured.

Even the most die hard of thanks would have admitted it was a thankless task. Take a show that has built up six years worth of mythos, confusion, twists and turns and make an ending that rewards the fans for keeping the faith. In the end, the Lost finale didn't quite live up to the promise, but it gave it a damn good try. The final twist may have left fans angry and confused but all that led up to that point was deeply engrossing; hearts were warmed, connections were made, and tears were shed. Many of the more angry reactions to the finale suggested that we had wasted six years of our lives, but despite the confusion and the unanswered questions the fact remains that those six years were spent watching one of the most mind-boggling, frustrating and just pure entertaining shows ever made.

Funnily enough, one of the biggest problems that Lost had to deal with is the fact that the answers to the big questions just weren't quite as fun as the questions themselves. Not since Twin Peaks has a show had so many mysteries and bizarre events to keep you hooked and desperate to know the meaning behind a show that was essentially nonsense. Because that is what the show was; try explaining the last six seasons to someone who's never watched Lost and you'll realise how ridiculous it all was. We kept faith because the characters were so engaging, the twists so unexpected, the plot and production showing an ambition not seen in television before.

No matter what you think of the ending, it is hard to deny that for six years we were treated to a show that had a mark of quality that few shows had. Sometimes this went beyond the meandering plot and became something truly special; 'The Constant' is not just the show's best ever episode but it could (and should) go down in history as one of the greatest standalone T.V. episodes of all time. On top of that some great actors were given the opportunity to embody some of the most unique, complex and fascinating characters we've seen. Terry O'Quinn as Locke and Michael Emerson as Ben Linus are just two examples of actor and character perfectly matched.

You may not be completely satisfied with the ending, but for the strong attachment we felt towards the cast, the pathos, and the endless twists and turns it was worth watching. We went from polar bears and electro-magnetic bunkers to time travel and beyond. Lost, it was a hell of a journey. You will be missed.

One half of New Zealand's fourth most popular guitar-based digi-bongo acapella-rap-funk-comedy folk duo to be the main villain in a big budget sequel?

Everyone loves Flight of the Conchords. Honestly, I've never met anyone who hasn't at least warmed to Bret and Jermaine's adventures in New York. So now the series has finished its fair to say everyone was interested in what they'd do next. If I'm honest with you, I never expected one of them to end up in Men in Black III. But Jermaine Clement will be...

I love left field casting, especially if someone has the balls to do it for a big budget blockbuster with a lot riding on it. I have no doubt that Clement's distant, detached style will suit well for playing a character we can only assume will be alien, even if it is difficult to imagine someone so likeable being a main villain. I'm very happy to see him moving on to bigger, if not necessarily better, things. But there's a 'but' here...who the hell was asking for another Men in Black movie?

Don't get me wrong, the original was a likeable film. It had a great sense of humour, some impressive effects for the time, and truly showcased Will Smith's ability as an A-list star. But there was something about it that was so...90's. The fact that its first sequel was so awful doesn't exactly help things either. Its been 8 years since that film was released; too long in my book. I'm sure the film will turn a profit, I just couldn't really care less about it.

The fact that Will Smith would return to the franchise doesn't exactly seem right either. All I can guess is that there's an absolutely massive pay-check involved. Smith's no Vin Diesel; he doesn't have to return to his old franchises that he'd previously 'outgrown' just to pick up some work. The man is box office gold and can pick and choose what he wants to do. Doing Men in Black III just seems like a step backwards.

Oh well, we'll have to see how this one works out for Jermaine. He's still got a bright future ahead of him whatever he does. In the meantime, here's some classic Conchords...

You had me at "David Fincher to direct"

Well this is an interesting one. The remake of 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea has been floating around for a while, and for good reason. As impressive as the Kirk Douglas classic was in 1954, and as outraged as fans of the original will be, this is good material for a modern update.

My interest in this film had been growing for a while until a simple, three letter name completely ruined everything; McG. Oh McG, we tried to give you a chance, we really did. You were given a summer tentpole and the opportunity to breathe new life into a classic franchise. We ignored your awful track record and your STUPID NAME (I honestly don't know what's wrong with Joseph McGinty) but you blew it and then you attached your name to 20,000 Leagues. I have never been so certain that a director would make a hash of his source material as McG and 20,000 Leagues, and when I heard that he was pursuing Will Smith as Captain Nemo my heart sank completely (don't even get me started on Hollywood's complete refusal to cast actors of Indian or Arabic origin in the roles they were literally born to play).

Anyway, thankfully this didn't work out and the project appeared to be in the doldrums for a while until this week we heard that David Fincher was attached to direct the film AND that Fox was planning a rival production to Disney's remake (the original novel is in the public domain). Its pretty obvious that whichever one of these films gets released first is going to be the winner as previous releases of near identical films would suggest but the mention of Fincher has really peaked my interest in the Disney project.

Fincher has never once made a film that wasn't at least entertaining (damn right I'm including Alien 3 in that) and has always had a unique and exciting visual style. I don't think doing The Social Network was a particularly good move, but I could yet be proved wrong. I just feel with the increasing unpopularity and controversy surrounding Facebook's privacy issues that Mark Zuckerberg's story is just one I don't really want told. I'd just love to see what Fincher does with a different kind of big budget film. Sure he's handled the cutting edge (Benjamin Button) and franchises (Alien 3 wasn't a bad film, dammit!) but 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea could be something very different, and, potentially, very fun. I'll be watched to see how all this pans out.

Riddick is Returning (and it's a good thing)

It's been no secret that writer/director David Twohy and star Vin Diesel have been trying to get a new Riddick project off the ground for a while but Variety has recently confirmed a new film is in the works, provisionally given the simple title of 'Riddick.' For Vin Diesel this marks another franchise return after he came running back to the 'xXx' and 'The Fast and the Furious' movies, presumably with his tail between his legs. So is this new Riddick movie a sign of desperation or an attempt to reignite Diesel's best work?

Pitch Black is the film that made Diesel a star. Ten years later it remains his best film and while he may not have quite lived up to his billing as the next big action hero in that time he can still carry a film if he is given the right role. Unfortunately, Diesel has proven to have a fairly limited range, explaining his return to franchises he had previously left. However, in Riddick it was clear that Diesel had found his perfect role. Complex, mysterious and with an intriguing and unexplained past, it was a character that could outgrow his ambitious but fairly humble beginnings in Pitch Black. Given the right treatment, Diesel's Riddick could have become a profitable, and maybe even iconic, character.

Which brings us to The Chronicles of Riddick. It wasn't a classic. In fact it was a gigantic mess but it was nowhere near as bad as critics, and the money it made, suggested. It suffered from the budget and expectations placed upon it; whereas Pitch Black had been a modestly budgeted sleeper hit, Chronicles was an epic behemoth; filled with scientifically questionable worlds, evil alien armies, and Judi Dench. The modern need for blockbusters to create a mythology and expanded universe saw Riddick hopping from planet to planet, a baffling Macbeth-inspired sub-plot and numerous new characters and races. Twohy's expanded vision was certainly intriguing and there were quite a few entertaining and interesting set pieces but in the end things didn't add up and the lack of a decent plot, and, most importantly, good character development effectively seemed to kill the franchise before it had even got going.

But with the news of a new film comes a new way of thinking; a good sci-fi film doesn't necessarily have to be a massively budgeted epic. A new film will be considerably cheaper than Chronicles and through this, like in Pitch Black, there should be more focus on character and suspense than size and spectacle. The character of Riddick grabbed our attention but Chronicles did nothing to build on this and paranoid horror was swapped for action set pieces. Of course, there is no guarantee that a new film won't end up a mess like Chronicles but with less resources and a bit more focus, the Riddick franchise could be back on track.

Worst. Criticism. Ever.

I'm quite looking forward to the new movie year. I always do because no matter how pessimistic I get there's always something that has the potential to be amazing. One film coming out next year that's really jumping off the page at me at the moment is Green Zone, the film that sees Paul Greengrass and Matt Damon teaming up again to tackle the Iraq war.


The trailer hit a few weeks back and looked very impressive but there was a disgruntled murmur going around that it looked just like Bourne in Iraq. Corrupt government employees, rogue Matt Damon, mysterious MacGuffins, shaky cams and brutal fistfights; they're all there, just in a desert setting. I see where people are coming from, but my question is so what?

Of course it is going to look familiar. Bourne is the roll Matt Damon has become synonymous with (Team America aside) and Paul Greengrass has a very distinct, documentary style of directing that he's made his own and used to great effect in The Bourne Supremacy and The Bourne Ultimatum. He's one of the few directors that can use shaky cam well (see Mark Forster's Quantum of Solace for an example of how not to do it) and it could well be a perfect match for an Iraq war thriller.

Damon and Greengrass have proven to make a good team in the past and it's clear from the trailer that the film is going for the suspenseful, claustrophobic and action-packed feel that they've captured so well before. This doesn't mean they aren't taking risks; Iraq war films have so far proved very difficult to get right. Linger too long on the sobering politics and you lose your audience, skim too lightly over the issues that matter and you lack substance and depth. Most difficult of all, it's proven extremely difficult to make a film about such a controversial war that just happens to be entertaining. If Greengrass can get the balance right it will be some achievement, but he is the man for the job.

If you had any more doubts, just look at the cast. Damon aside, we've got the incredibly underrated Brendan Gleeson, Jason Isaacs and Amy Ryan. If that wasn't enough, it's got Greg Kinnear(!)

Don't get me wrong, I don't want this to be Bourne in Iraq but if some of the style and expert handling of a thriller is translated to the Iraq setting then it is only going to be a good thing. My only hope is Greengrass, Damon et al. don't prove me wrong.

NBC Bay Area on Chevy Chase comeback.

My attention has been drawn to this article on a mini Chevy Chase revival in the last few months.

You may recall my argument that it's time for Chevy to be welcomed back into the mainstream and it seems he may be gaining popularity once again. I haven't seen Community, the new NBC comedy that he has a role in but I was pleasantly surprised to see Chevy and Dan Aykroyd in a recent episode of Family Guy. The article seems to be making a big leap of faith to call this a full-scale comeback but it's more or less a plug for Community anyway. Considering the depths he's had to sink to in the pass it's good to see Chevy getting some positive press again.

2012 IS better than The Day After Tomorrow (just)

But that isn't saying an awful lot.

Without giving too much away, my early concerns about 2012 blowing its disaster load too early like The Day After Tomorrow have been heeded. This is full-on, unrelenting disaster porn. After 30-odd minutes or so of the most unconvincing of set-ups and the standard bad science things start to go wrong. Then they get worse. And worse. And worse. For two whole hours.

There is, of course, nothing wrong with this. It's what people want to see in disaster movies and one-trick-pony accusations aside, Roland Emmerich has a pretty good idea of what people want to see in disaster movies. They want stuff getting broken in spectacular ways, (preferably recognisable Western monuments), a tsunami (because every disaster movie has to have one), people just barely escaping certain death and characters with just about enough depth for you to want them to survive.

So how does Emmerich do on these fronts?

Well stuff gets broken. A lot. In fact, this is the stuff-getting-brokenest of any film I have ever seen. Family homes fall into huge chasms, skyscrapers collapse, and, oh yes, you better believe some famous monuments get destroyed. Look out for a scene in Vatican City that may as well have METAPHOR flashing in huge red letters on the screen. You can't fault 2012 for the destruction it unleashes, and as you may have guessed from the trailer, there are tsunamis taller than mountains too. It's all rather fun actually, for a while. The effects are probably the best the genre has seen but after a while the spectacle of endless destruction begins to become surprisingly dull.

As for the narrow escapes, well it's pretty fair to say Emmerich went overboard. John Cusack's character is one of the luckiest I have ever seen and possibly the most heroic novelist since Stephen King slagged off Twilight. Think of a vehicle, any vehicle, and John Cusack probably came close to certain death in it in this film. Whilst watching the film, I wouldn't have been surprised to see him heroically outrunning a pyroclastic flow on a lawnmower as long as he was doing it to protect his children.

I really liked the look of the cast for this film so it was so disappointing that it was the characters that let this film down. Emmerich fails to give us a team of survivors who we really want to see alive at the end of the film. He makes a rather ham-fisted attempt at political commentary, complete with ruthless and bureaucratic governments and bad impersonators of real world leaders so it's not surprising that we're meant to not particularly like a couple of members of the American government. However, the whole of the main cast is so two-dimensional and self-involved that you begin to think about all those being killed in the carnage on-screen and wonder what makes these guys so worthy of survival. I honestly can't feel for people who decide that, in the midst of an event taking billions of lives, that they should have a heart to heart on why their marriage failed.

But I guess what I should have learned from Emmerich's films before is that it's not about plot or character development or plausibility or anything unimportant like that. It's about carnage. If stuff is getting broken and there are tsunamis left right and center who cares? As a form of escapism I must admit it is fun, but be warned, the moment you start to think about what you're watching you'll regret it. So abandon all logical thought and take in the effects and you might just enjoy this film.