The non-critic's critical review of the Labyrinth tv miniseries

So I just finished watched the CW's miniseries tv series Labyrinth and I don't think I've ever suffered from such a sense of being jilted (well maybe with the exception of Elysium, but I kind of knew that one was going to be bad going into it) and trust me, hell hath no fury like a woman scorned. Basically it's an indie mini series that the CW bought distribution rights to and have been peddling it as a "companion piece to the tv series Reign". Now obviously CW's president has no idea what he's talking about other than a vague sense that both productions involve some form of women prancing around in costume gowns and there's some knights or nobles or something or other along those lines. While Reign has MANY flaws, it's main draw is as a period piece setting for the teenage love triangle that the CW "reigns" supreme in. (think Dawson's Creek but in 16th century French court). Labyrinth on the other hand is touted as an ancient archeological mystery following the lives of two women, one in the 13th century and the other present day (think poor man's Dan Brown). According to the reviews, the series is slow moving but promised appeal to those historically inclined which drew me in immediately since I had just finished watching a documentary about Mathilde of England. With all the talk of how boring and slow and long it was, I was expecting some educational exercise in medieval and theological history, but no...it was just bad. period. For the potential viewer to digest how bad it is, let me explain in a couple of brief points

1. Part I was REALLY slow.  It's mostly a lot of "setting the stage" where you meet the characters and it's kind of compelling if you're a history nut since there's a lot of scenes involving depictions of medieval life and times as well as some background on the massacre of Cathars. Basically Part I sets up "the mystery" but it was so slow-going at one point I asked myself how could they possibly tie it all this together in another 1.5 hours? and therein lies problem #2...

2. They Don't.

 Part II was REALLY fast and had no plot. It almost came off as if the producers really wanted to make a sincere historically intricate film but ran out of time or budget and basically slapped a bunch of scenes together that kind of made sense, and called it a day. In part I, you learn about Alice in modern day and that she shares some psychological connection with this woman Alais in 13th century France, and that's it. In part II, so many other parties/characters are thrown into the mix that lead nowhere- there's the villainess head of some order centered around the labyrinth, the potential love interest but his storyline isn't really developed, and then some religious nut who keeps butting in and bad sibling rivalry, the introduction of John Hurt's character...it was all very slapdash and clumsily put together. The Deus Ex Machina of the plot really took away from the storyline which leads to my main problem #3

3. YOU NEVER REALLY FIND OUT "THE MYSTERY OF THE GRAIL"! Ok, well you kind of do, but it was a cop-out, muddled, poor excuse for an answer and it in NO way answered the mystery that was posed in Part I. In Part I you are introduced to the Cathars and you learn about a mysterious Muslim who is the "navigator" of an ancient religion requiring all three books to be brought together at a certain date, so they can be deciphered and some magical event can take place. Basically I'm sitting there thinking the damn cosmos is going to realign like something along the lines of The Fifth Element, and the retard screenwriter throws some low budget ABC family crap ending for viewers to lap up. NOT IMPRESSED. And it wasn't just the main mystery, there's so many subplots that's never solved/explored- there's a dead body introduced in the beginning but it's never really tied to the rest of the story, the evil older sister is out to get Alais but you never figure out how/why she knows about the order etc, what was the point of Alais's husband in the story? What was the point of adding Draco Malfoy's useless character? (and is it just me or is he just as whiny when playing a good guy?) Why did the bad crusader who was after the books all of a sudden just...stop? Yeah. It's one of those films...SMH....

Overall, it's just the kind of thing you should expect from regular basic tv, low budget and poorly cobbled together, which is pretty much all of the CW, but at least their regular lineup hits the sweet spot in whatever low form of entertainment you indulge in, but this labyrinthine convoluted mess won't push any of your buttons, whatever buttons you may have. Not for romance, not for action sequences, not for twisted ingenious plots, not for ending, not for history and definitely not for acting.

Adidas Stan Smith Review and How to get your hands on a pair

So for you those of you who don't know about the Adidas Stan Smith craze, then let me enlighten you here. From being THE ultimate tennis shoe to the Parisian Woman's closet staple, the Stan Smith frenzy is at an all time high in the fashion world as well as the sneaker world. While I can't imagine hitting up the court in them, I do see myself doing virtually everything else in them. They remind me of a great pair of French Connection oxfords that I own that look classic, minimalist, and modern with a touch of tomboyish cool. They are also a hit in Shanghai where Adidas Originals are extremely popular and widely prevalent. Are you sold yet? Now the more important question is- where to buy them if you are woman with a shoe size smaller than 10?

Fit and Sizing 
This was the trickiest for me. Like all the Adidas originals, the shoes are uni-sexual but the sizing are in men's.  I had a similar problem when buying my Adidas superstar 2.0 (another classic, love them) and it depends on the shoe. The Adidas website tells you to size down 1 size for women's, and that is do-able for the Stan smith's because they are a slimmer shoe, though if you can, try to get a size 1.5 smaller (for wider feet, stick to 1 size down). I'm a size 8 in women's and my size 7 Stans were a little loose on me, I had to lace up to the highest eyelet which covers up the tongue of the sneaker. For a wider shoe like the superstar 2.0, sizing down 2 sizes is completely appropriate.

Where to Buy

1. Adidas.com After Adidas re-released them in January, they have been more or less consistently sold out at adidas.com, HOWEVER, they do restock them every couple of months, so try to check the site occasionally for any updated inventory. If you happen to stop by a store, it's worth it to go in and check but heads up, I live in NYC and all 3 stores downtown I visited informed me the smallest size they carried was 9.

2. Jcrew.com, If you didn't know, J. Crew has a large inventory of other brands in their men's shoe department and they have one of the largest size selections out there, however they also tend to get sold out fairly quickly and you will have to check periodically to see if they've restocked. I purchased my pair from here.

3. Ebay.com, Ebay always have Stan Smith's in stock, however if you are looking for a pair in a lucrative size 6-7 then be prepared to pay at least 15-20% more. Also steer clear of Hong Kong sellers as they are more liable to be counterfeits

*Nordstrom's, Farfetch, and Footlocker also carry them, however, I've never seen anything lower than a size 8 in stock regularly

Conclusion
I've only worn mine for a couple of weeks and they're pretty comfortable, the soles are pretty flat so if you need arch support then I recommend an insert. Another thing to note is that the shoe does crease, for those who are shoe perfectionists. To sum it up, If you happen to come across them in your size, then definitely snatch them up. However, unless you're a diehard fashionista, there's no need to be paying designer prices for them. To get the same clean look, try the Adidas superstar 2.0 in all white or any of the white sneakers from Lacoste like the Mineria (my favorite is the evershot!).